alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT33.2[BANKERS TRUST LOGO]*It’s our name ... and our promise.*Management AssessmentManagement of Bankers Trust Company, N.A. (the Company) is responsible for assessingcompliance with the applicable servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation ABof the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to its document custodian responsibilitiesfor the Principal Life Insurance Company Secured Notes Program (the Program) as defined inits Custodial Agreement dated March 5, 2004 (the Platform) as of and for the year endedDecember 31, 2006. Accordingly, Item 1122(d) (4) (ii) is applicable to the activitiesperformed by the Company with respect to the Platform covered by this report. The remainingservicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’sRegulation AB are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect tothe Platform covered by this report.The Company’s management has assessed the effectiveness of its compliance with the applicableservicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006. In making this assessment,management used the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph(d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.Based on such assessment, the Company’s management believes that, as of and for the year endedDecember 31, 2006, the Company has complied in all material respects with the servicingcriterion set forth in Item 1122(d)(4)(ii) of Regulation AB of the Securities and ExchangeCommission relating to the servicing of the Platform.KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report with respectto management’s assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing criterion as of and forthe year ended December 31, 2006.     Dated this 14th day of March, 2007 BANKERS TRUST COMPANY, N.A.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CALEEM LARONDE,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5787-MCR-MAF

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

 /

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the 

U.S. Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 7, that the case be dismissed for failure to comply 

with a Court order. The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of any objections

timely filed. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections filed 

thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 7, is adopted and incorporated 

by reference in this Order. 

Case 3:20-cv-05787-MCR-MAF Document 8 Filed 01/04/21 Page 1 of 2
2. The § 2254 petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of January 2021.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05787-MCR-MAF Document 8 Filed 01/04/21 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000756767
<NAME>                        TELS Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Currency

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         29,471
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  879,639
<ALLOWANCES>                                   91,293
<INVENTORY>                                    565,242
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,638,915
<PP&E>                                         2,408,661
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,852,080
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,546,959
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,475,802
<BONDS>                                        452,571
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       77,835
<OTHER-SE>                                     696,607
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,546,959
<SALES>                                        2,402,554
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,402,554
<CGS>                                          856,450
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,210,579
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               17,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               12,690
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             56,486
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                158,203
<INCOME-TAX>                                   53,733
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            211,936
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   211,936
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .05




</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEEE DIVISION

MAURICE RICARDO

PETERSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv395-MW/MJF

RICKY D. DIXON,

Defendant.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

and Recommendation. ECF No. 29. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 29, is accepted and adopted as 

this Court’s opinion. Petitioner’s motion for default, ECF No. 28, is DENIED. This 

case is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED on May 27, 2022.

s/Mark E. Walker ____

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00395-MW-MJF Document 33 Filed 05/27/22 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000757523
<NAME> ARAMARK CORPORATION & SUBSIDIARIES
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-03-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1996
<CASH>                                          22,545
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  622,256
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,345
<INVENTORY>                                    349,043
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,133,318
<PP&E>                                       1,615,212
<DEPRECIATION>                                 786,558
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,936,496
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          942,317
<BONDS>                                      1,436,515
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           237
<OTHER-SE>                                     299,153
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,936,496
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,686,751
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,540,226
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                48,606
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,826
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,484
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 46,245
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,590
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,655
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,655
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.61
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:92cr4013-WS

PATRICIA CLARKE, 4:06cv29-WS

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc.

1710) docketed June 28, 2006. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendant's

"Motion to Eliminate Enhancements [and] Reduce Sentence" be summarily dismissed

because authorization for filing a second or successive § 2255 motion has not been

granted by the court of appeals. The defendant has filed no objections to the report and

recommendation.

Upon review of the record, this court has determined that the report and

recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 1710) is hereby

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

Case 4:92-cr-04013-WS-CAS Document 1714 Filed 08/03/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:92cv4013-WS

2. The defendant’s "Motion to Eliminate Enhancements [and] Reduce Sentence" 

(doc. 1690) is hereby summarily DISMISSED as authorization for filing a second or

successive § 2255 motion has not been granted by the court of appeals.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and shall close Case No.

4:06cv29-WS.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of August , 2006.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:92-cr-04013-WS-CAS Document 1714 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 2
Consent of Independent Public Accountants
     As independent public  accountants,  we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference of our reports dated May 11, 1999 (except with respect to the
matters discussed in Note 19, as to which the date is June 1, 1999), included in
or incorporated by reference into Thermo TerraTech Inc.'s Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended April 3, 1999, and into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statements as follows: Registration Statement No. 333-02269 on Form
S-2, Registration Statement No. 33-16462 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No.
33-16464 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-16465 on Form S-8,
Registration Statement No. 33-16466 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No.
333-2055 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-52824 on Form S-8,
Registration Statement No. 033-65307 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No.
033-65283 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 033-65281 on Form S-8,
Registration Statement No. 33-86194 on Form S-8, and Registration Statement No.
333-05263 on Form S-3.



                                                            Arthur Andersen LLP



Boston, Massachusetts
June 8, 1999
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 73166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29887]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Publication of the Tier 2 Tax Rates

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Publication of the tier 2 tax rates for calendar year 2011 as 
required by section 3241(d) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 
section 3241). Tier 2 taxes on railroad employees, employers, and 
employee representatives are one source of funding for benefits under 
the Railroad Retirement Act.

DATES: The tier 2 tax rates for calendar year 2011 apply to 
compensation paid in calendar year 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Edmondson, CC:TEGE:EOEG:ET1, 
Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20224, Telephone Number (202) 622-0047 (not a toll-free number).
    TIER 2 TAX RATES: The tier 2 tax rate for 2011 under section 
3201(b) on employees is 3.9 percent of compensation. The tier 2 tax 
rate for 2011 under section 3221(b) on employers is 12.1 percent of 
compensation. The tier 2 tax rate for 2011 under section 3211(b) on 
employee representatives is 12.1 percent of compensation.

    Dated: November 17, 2010.
Nancy Marks,
Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government 
Entities).
[FR Doc. 2010-29887 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 5:92cr5033 LAC

RYAN O’NEIL DALEY

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on MARCH 14, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE PURSUANT TO TITLE 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on3/12/08 Doc.# 101

RESPONSES:

BY GOVERNMENT on3/24/08 Doc.# 103

RESPONSE BY DEFT PRO SE on4/10/08 Doc.# 104

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 14

th day of

August, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) At sentencing in January 1993, the defendant was held accountable for 15

kilograms or more of cocaine base which resulted in a base offense level of 42

with a total offense level of 46 after 4 levels of enhancement resulting in a

guideline range of life imprisonment. Although no substantial assistance motion

had been filed, the Court imposed a 240 month term of imprisonment well below the

applicable guideline range of life finding that the sentence of 240 months “is

sufficient to provide just punishment for the offense and to adequately deter

others who may wish to engage in similar conduct.”

Entered On Docket: By: 

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

Copies sent to:

Case 5:92-cr-05033-RS-MD Document 107 Filed 08/14/08 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 5:92cr5033LAC Page 2 of 2

In 1996, the Court entered an order reducing the base offense level to 38

pursuant to retroactive Amendment 505 still with the 4 levels of enhancement and

a reduced guideline range of 360 months to life. However, the Court found the

240 month sentence, which was still significantly below the guideline range, to

be the appropriate sentence. 

Pursuant to Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, the Drug Quantity Table

at Section 2D1.1 assigns a base offense level of 38 for 4.5 kilograms or more of

cocaine base. After adding the 4 levels of enhancement, the guideline range

remains 360 months to life. 

Upon consideration of all the factors of 18 U.S. C. 3553(a), the Courts finds the

240 sentence to be appropriate and necessary to provide sufficient punishment and

to deter others given the facts and circumstances of this case.

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Case 5:92-cr-05033-RS-MD Document 107 Filed 08/14/08 Page 2 of 2
# I

Lamp Workshop Agenda July 19, 1995 9:00 Registration 9:30 Introduction Discussion of the following: 1) Allowance for measurement uncertainty and manufacturing variance; 2) Testing and compliance of incandescent lamps at design voltage; 3) Expand the voltage range; 4) Definition of colored lamp; 5) Definition of "basic model ." 12:00 to 1:00 Lunch 6) Definition of rough or vibration service incandescent reflector lamp 7) Define or clarify the exemption for the-bulged reflector lamp 8) Safety issues of 34 watt lamps 9) Position on recertification of 8' fluorescent lamps 10) Coordination of test procedures with FTC labeling rules; 11) Effective date for submission of compliance statements and certification reports; and, 12) Impact of NIST devaluation of the lumen. 4:30 Adjourn
28.104 Annual performance bonds.       (a) 						            Annual performance bonds only apply to nonconstruction contracts. They shall provide a gross penal sum applicable to the total amount of all covered contracts.                                          (b) 						            When the penal sums obligated by contracts are approximately equal to or exceed the penal sum of the annual performance bond, an additional bond will be required to cover additional contracts.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 28.1 - Bonds and Other Financial Protections
§ 4285.93 Other Federal statutes and regulations that apply. Several other Federal statutes and regulations apply to cooperative agreement proposals considered for review or to agreements awarded under this part. These include but are not limited to: ( a ) 7 CFR Part 1, Subpart A—USDA implementation of the Freedom of Information Act;
( b ) 7 CFR Part 3—USDA implementation of OMB Circular A-129 regarding debt collection;
( c ) 7 CFR Part 15, Subpart A—USDA implementation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in order to assure nondiscrimination;
( d ) 7 CFR Part 1473—National Agricultural, Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act Amendments of 1981 if the project involves a college or university;
( e ) 2 CFR part 400, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards;
( f ) 2 CFR part 415, General Program Administrative Regulations;
( g ) 2 CFR part 417, Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension;
( h ) 2 CFR part 418, New Restrictions on Lobbying;
( i ) 2 CFR part 421, Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance);
( j ) 7 CFR part 3051—Audits of Institutions of Higher Education and Other Nonprofit Institutions; 29 U.S.C. 794, section 504—Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and 7 CFR part 15B prohibiting discrimination based upon physical or mental handicap in Federally assisted programs; and
( k ) 35 U.S.C. 200 *et seq.*—Bayh-Dole Act, controlling allocation of rights to inventions made by employees of small business firms and domestic nonprofit organizations, including universities, in Federally assisted programs (implementing regulations are contained in 37 CFR part 401).
[59 FR 38342, July 28, 1994, as amended at 79 FR 76018, Dec. 19, 2014]
exhibit10-14_033109.htm


     

    Exhibit
10.14


    Service
Retention Program

    Agreement
2009

    


    


    


    Employee
Name:

    


    


    The above
named employee was awarded a cash retention bonus of $          
 on,                 
2009.

    


    Guideline
Notes

    The cash
bonus award will become vested in accordance with the following vesting
schedule:

    


    25% on
May 1, 2009

    25% on
May 1, 2010

    25% on
May 1, 2011

    25% on
May 1, 2012

    


    The bonus
will be paid in the year in which the bonus, or a portion thereof, becomes
vested.  In the event an employee terminates employment for any reason
other than Death, Disability or Retirement prior to vesting, the bonus will be
forfeited.  In the event of a termination due to Death, Disability or
Retirement, the non-vested portion of the bonus will become vested as of the
date of termination.  In the event of a Change in Control, the
non-vested portion of the bonus will become vested.  The terms
“Disability,” “Retirement” and “Change in Control” will have the same definition
used in the CFS Bancorp, Inc. 2008 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan.

    


    This
document is not a contract or commitment for employment.

    


    


    Authorized
By:                                           _____________________________________

    


    


    Recipient’s
Signature:                                 _____________________________________

    


    


    


    Signature
Witnessed
by:                            
 _____________________________________
amenlongtermincentiveplan.htm


     



    Exhibit
10.3

    


    FIRST
AMENDMENT TO

    M/I
HOMES, INC.

    2009
LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

     

    This First Amendment (this “Amendment”)
to the M/I Homes, Inc. 2009 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is
effective
as of May 5, 2009.

    


    WHEREAS,
M/I Homes, Inc. previously adopted the Plan; and

    


    WHEREAS,
pursuant to Section 13.1 of the Plan, M/I Homes, Inc. desires to amend the Plan
as set forth in this Amendment.

    


    NOW,
THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

    


    1.           The
last sentence of Article XI is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following
is substituted therefore:

    


    Except as
otherwise provided in the Plan, the vesting conditions of an Award may only be
accelerated upon the
death, termination due to Disability, or Retirement of the
Participant.

    


    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, M/I Homes, Inc. has caused this Amendment to be executed by its
duly authorized officer
effective as of the date set forth above.

     

    


    
      
        
          
            
              
                
                  
                    
                      
                        
                          
                            
                              
                                
                                  
                                    
                                      
                                        	 	
                                                M/I
      HOMES, INC.

                                              
	 
      	 
      
	 	 /s/J.
      Thomas Mason 
	 
      	 
      
	
                                                 

                                              	 J.
      Thomas Mason, 
	
                                                 

                                              	 
      Executive Vice President and General
Counsel
Page 1 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cr44-MCR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 3:20cr44-MCR

TOMMY LEE LOVETT, III

_______________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The Defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. 

R. Crim. P., and has entered a plea of guilty to Count One, Count Two, and Count 

Three of the Indictment. After cautioning and examining the Defendant under oath 

concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined the guilty plea 

was knowing and voluntary and the offenses charged are supported by independent 

bases in fact containing each of the essential elements thereof. I therefore 

recommend the plea of guilty be accepted and the Defendant be adjudicated guilty 

and have sentence imposed accordingly.

Dated this 22nd day of January 2021.

/s/ Charles J. Kahn, Jr. 

CHARLES J. KAHN, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00044-MCR Document 28 Filed 01/22/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cr44-MCR

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed 

within twenty-four hours after being served a copy thereof. Any different 

deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use 

only, and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon the 

magistrate judge and all other parties. A party failing to object to a magistrate 

judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and 

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on 

unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See U.S. Ct. of App. 11th Cir. Rule 

3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case 3:20-cr-00044-MCR Document 28 Filed 01/22/21 Page 2 of 2