alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000757642
<NAME> LIF
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             262
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       24
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   175
<PP&E>                                           10918
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2208
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    9283
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               60
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        1772
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      9283
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1168
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   882
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 481
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (155)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

        


</TABLE>
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 5:93cr5038LAC

STEPHEN THOMAS aka STEVEN

MOUNT

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on March 5, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION UNDER TITLE 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines § 1B1.10(c) for Reduction of Sentence 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on2/25/08 Doc.# 574 

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 6th day of

March, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED. MOOT.

(b) Sentence has been reduced (doc. 573).

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 5:93-cr-05038-RS-MD Document 576 Filed 03/06/08 Page 1 of 1
Federal Acquisition Regulation

Part 1 - Federal Acquisition Regulations System

Part 2 - Definitions of Words and Terms

Part 3 - Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest

Part 4 - Administrative and Information Matters

Parent topic: Subchapter A - General
Case 5:00-cv-00071-RH Document 39 Filed 03/16/01 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                --------------

                                CERTIFICATIONS

      I, Steve Bailey, certify that:


             1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on
                Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period
                covered by this report on Form 10-K of CWHEQ Revolving Home
                Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-G (the "Exchange Act periodic
                reports");

             2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports,
                taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a
                material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
                make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
                which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
                to the period covered by this report;

             3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and
                other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for
                the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange
                Act periodic reports;

             4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
                servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance
                review(s) conducted in preparing the servicer compliance
                statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of
                Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
                periodic reports, the servicer(s) have fulfilled their
                obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material
                respects; and

             5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
                criteria for asset-backed securities and their related
                attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
                criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
                in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB
                and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as
                an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in
                this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described
                in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
                10-K.

             In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
             information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
             JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Trustee and The Bank of New York,
             as Trustee.

         Date: March 30, 2007


             /s/ Steve Bailey
             ------------------------
             Steve Bailey
             Senior Managing Director, Loan Administration
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 37 1 2

_____________________________
J USTIN T AVARSE B ARGE , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Jennie Kinsey , Judge

. July 22, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , R OWE , and O STERHAUS , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Long , Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-92,937-01

EX P ARTE AUG USTIN PINEDA , Appli cant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 3696-A IN THE 100 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM HALL COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant pleade d g uilty to ag g rava ted assault and was s en t enced to eig hteen y ear s’ imprisonment. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant contends that his orig inal g uilty plea was involuntary beca use trial counsel failed to explain the conseque nces of pleading g uilty to defe rre d adjudication. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Hill v. Lockhart , 474 U.S. 52 (1985); Ex parte Argent , 393 S.W .3d 781 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Acc ording ly , the rec ord should be develope d. The trial court is the appropr iate for

um for finding s of fa ct. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shal l o rder trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim. I n developing the rec ord, the trial2

court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). I f the trial court e lects to hold a hea ring , it shall deter

mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wants to be repr esente d by cou n s el , the trial court shall appoint counsel to repr esent him at the hear ing. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. I f counsel is appointed or reta ined, the trial court shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s name

. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether trial counsel’s perf ormanc e was defic ient and Applicant would have i n s isted on a trial but for counsel’s alleg ed defic ient perf

ormanc e. The trial court may make a ny other finding s and conc lusions that it deems appropr iate in re sponse to Applicant’s c laim. The trial court shall make findings o f fa ct and conclusions of law withi n ninety day s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motions, objec tions, proposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: Aug ust 25, 2021 Do not publish
#### § 502.1 General.

The rules and regulations in this part apply to the buildings and grounds of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), Beltsville, MD, and to any persons entering in or on such property. The Administrator, General Services Administration, has delegated to the Secretary of Agriculture, with authority to redelegate, the authority to make all the needful rules and regulations for the protection of the buildings, grounds, equipment, and experimental plants and animals of BARC (36 FR 18440). The Secretary of Agriculture has delegated this authority to the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics (60 FR 56392) who in turn has delegated such authority to the Administrator, Agricultural Research Service (60 FR 56392). The rules and regulations in this part are issued pursuant to such delegations.

[61 FR 51211, Oct. 1, 1996]
§ 51.1405 Kernel color classification. ( a ) The skin color of the pecan kernels are described in terms of the color classifications provided in this section. When specified to a lighter color classification, that color may be used to describe the lot in connection with the grade. ( 1 ) Light means that the kernel is mostly golden color or lighter, with not more than 25 percent of the surface darker than golden, and none of the surface darker than light brown.
( 2 ) Light amber means that more than 25 percent of the kernel is light brown, with not more than 25 percent of the surface darker than light brown, none of which is darker than medium brown.
( 3 ) Amber means that more than 25 percent of the kernel is medium brown, with not more than 25 percent of the surface darker than medium brown, none of which is darker than dark brown (very dark brown or blackish-brown discoloration).
( 4 ) Dark amber means that more than 25 percent of the kernel is dark brown, with not more than 25 percent of the surface darker than dark brown (very dark brown or blackish-brown discoloration).
( b ) U.S. Department of Agriculture kernel color standards, PEC-MC-1, illustrate the color intensities implied by the terms “golden,” “light brown,” “medium brown,” and “dark brown” referred to in paragraph (a) of this section. The color standards are available at *https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards .*
#### §§ 4279.236-4279.242 [Reserved]
#### Charles Schneider, Respondent, v. Jane B. Schneider, Appellant.

Order entered on January 8, 1969, granting plaintiff husband’s motion to discontinue the separation action instituted by him, on condition that he pay all temporary alimony due as of the return date of the motion at Special Term, together with0 statutory costs, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and motion denied, without costs or disbursements to either party. Plaintiff brought this action claiming abandonment. Defendant wife interposed an answer in which she denied the allegations in the complaint, raised the defenses of abandonment, cruel and inhuman treatment and nonsupport, and requested alimony and support, counsel fees and custody of the two infant issue of the marriage. She did not interpose any counterclaims. On August 2, 1968, defendant was awarded, *pendente lite,*$180 a week for support of herself and the two children. Apparently no appeal was ever taken from that order. Prior to that order and allegedly subsequent to the order appealed from, the husband failed or refused to provide any support for his wife and children. The only reason given by plaintiff in support of his application to discontinue is that he “ does not desire to become involved any longer in a matrimonial ease with his wife as no useful purpose will now be served by the continuation of the present suit ”, The inference is warranted that the real reason behind plaintiff’s application to discontinue is his desire to avoid complying with the support order of the court. Under the authorities, the plaintiff has no absolute right to discontinue this matrimonial action. *(Winans*v. *Winans,*124 N. Y. 140; *Landsman*v. *Landsman,*278 App. Div. 214; *Smith*v. *Smith,*7 Misc 2d 515.) If .the plaintiff is allowed to discontinue this action without adjudicating the rights of the defendant wife to support, she would be prejudiced by losing the benefits of the support order awarded to her and she would be compelled to commence an action of her own against the plaintiff in order to obtain support. The failure of the defendant to plead a counterclaim does not affect the power of the court to provide for her support in the court’s discretion, as justice requires. (Domestic Relations Law, § 236; *Virgil*v. *Virgil,*55 Misc 2d 64.) Concur—■ Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, McGrivern, Markewieh and Nunez, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the lim ited circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR

. R.

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________

No. 97-60165

No. 97-60295

____________

THE PEABODY CORPORATION, doing business as

Reilly-Benton Co. Inc.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MERCHANTS AND MARINE BANK,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(1:96-CV-255-RR & 1:96-CV-255-FF)

January 14, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

On the unopposed motion of Merchants and Marine Bank (“M&M”),

we have consolidated appeal numbers 97-60165 and 97-60295. In 97-

60165, the Peabody Corporation (“Peabody”) app eals the district

court’s grant of summary judgment to M&M on Peabody’s claims of

fraud and negligen t misrepresentation arising out of a brief

telephone conversation between a representative of Peabody’s bankand the Chief Executive Officer of M&M. We affirm this judgment

for substantially the reasons set out by the district court in its

Memorandum Order of Novem ber 25, 1996, finding particularly

persuasive the district court’s discussion of M&M’s lack of duty to

Peabody. S ee

, e.g.

, Foster v. Bass

, 575 So. 2d 967, 972 (Miss.

1990) (“duty and breach of that duty are essential to a finding of

negligence”).

In appeal number 97-60295, M&M appeals the district court’s

denial of attorney’s fees. We find no abuse of discretion in the

district court’s order and therefore affirm. S ee Wegner v.

Standard Ins. Co.

, 129 F.3d 814, 820-821 (5th Cir. 1997) (“We

review the district court’s decision to award attorneys’ fees only

for an abuse of discretion.”).
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of SkyTerra
Communications, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott Macleod, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Scott Macleod                                   
|Scott Macleod                                       
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

February 12, 2008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

XAVIER U. RIGSBY,

D.O.C. # E38916,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 4:20cv504-MW/MAF

SERGEANT TEDDER, et al.,

Defendants. 

___________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation, ECF No. 6. Upon consideration, with no objections having 

been filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “This action is DISMISSED

without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute.”

The Clerk shall close the file. 

SO ORDERED on January 11, 2021.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00504-MW-MAF Document 7 Filed 01/11/21 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:20-cv-00504-MW-MAF Document 7 Filed 01/11/21 Page 2 of 2
#### Earl E. Wilcox, Respondent, v. Ralph Wilcox, Appellant.

Motion

granted, judgment and order reversed and a new trial granted. (See *Matter of Cronk,*19 A D 2d 795; *Waterman*v. *State of New York,*13 A D 2d 619; *Cassella*v. *Manikas,*8 A D 2d 587.)
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2540 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2540

            To suspend temporarily the duty on Deltamethrin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 5, 2006

  Mr. Talent introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To suspend temporarily the duty on Deltamethrin.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. 1236. DELTAMETHRIN.

    Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the 
following new heading:

``      9902.11.26       (S)-a-Cyano-3-     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         phenoxybenzyl                                                      31/2009
                         (1R,3R)-3-(2,2-
                         dibromovinyl)-2,2-
                         dimethylcycloprop
                         anecarboxylate
                         (Deltamethrin)
                         (CAS No. 52918-63-
                         5) (provided for
                         in subheading
                         2926.90.30)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
May 29 , 2015 U.S. Department of Commerce Docket #DOC

- 2015
- 0001 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230 ATTN: The Honorable Penny S. Pritzker U.S. Department of State Docket #DOS

- 2015
- 0016 2201 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20520 ATTN: The Honorable John Kerry U.S. Department of Transportation Docket # DOT

- OST
- 2015
- 0082 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 ATTN: The Honorable Anthony Foxx Dear Honorable Secretaries: The Council on Trade & Industry for Filipino

- American s (COTIFA) w as founded with the knowledge that Filipino

- Americans can create and build wealth that will benefit the US and the Philippines. T he organization recognizes the importance of international business and cross

- border cooperation in improving the financial sit uation on both sides of the Pacific. Our concern is that the debate regarding Open Skies

— and the possibility of restrictions on Gulf air carriers
— has so far ignored the effects such limitations will have on business travel that fuels economic growth . The US carriers seem to be arguing that they should “own” passengers traveling from the US to destinations like Manila, even when limited in their capabilities to provide service. Assenting to this position by basically giving US carriers “rights” to US
– origin ating and

– terminating air travel will en able more monopolistic behavior, which will in turn harm travelers . US airlines offer limited options for U.S. connections from Ninoy Aquino International Airport: Delta via Tokyo and United via Guam . COTIF A members making the trip will often rely on foreign carriers. Some of this travel will fall under US carrier partnerships and alliances , but the service is still Open Skies
- dependent . In fact, American Airlines partners with Etihad Airways

— the same Gulf c arrier it is now attacking

— for service to Manila. There is a reason this partnership continues despite the rhetoric: Etihad’s one

- stop flights from LAX to MNL rival the best options from the US carrier s (Delta via Japan) . Such direct competition is vital. Open Skies agreements side with free trade, rather than government control, as the best way to lower fares and ensure highest quality service. The policy works. The alternative
— unnecessary government intervention to tip the scales in favor or US carriers

— is fraught with peril.
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Academic AchievementElementary Secondary EducationFamily EnvironmentFather AttitudesFathersNuclear FamilyOne Parent FamilyParent ParticipationParent RoleParent School RelationshipParent Student RelationshipPerformance Factors

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Identifiers - Assessments and Surveys:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget