alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PANAMA CITY DIVISION 

CLIFTON JAMES HAIRSTON, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 5:20-CV-119-RV-HTC 

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner 

 of Social Security, 

 Defendant. 

______________________________/ 

ORDER 

The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on July 

9, 2021 (ECF No. 19). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to 

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo

determination of all timely filed objections. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely 

filed objections thereto (doc. 20), I have determined the Report and 

Recommendation should be adopted. 

Case 5:20-cv-00119-RV-HTC Document 21 Filed 07/23/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

5:20-cv-119-RV-HTC 

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 

19) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. 

3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly, 

pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §. 405(g), AFFIRMING the decision 

of the Commissioner. 

4. The Clerk is directed to close this case. 

DONE AND ORDERED on this 23rd day of July, 2021. 

 s/ Roger Vinson 

 ROGER VINSON 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:20-cv-00119-RV-HTC Document 21 Filed 07/23/21 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 74052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29999]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 23, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 
2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. TXRB Holdings, Inc., Dallas, Texas; to become a bank holding 
company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Texas Republic 
Bank, N.A., Frisco, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 23, 
2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-29999 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NOS. 5:03cr13-RH 

5:05cv67-RH/WCS

LYVIA HILL,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING §2255 MOTION

This matter is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (document 273), to which no objections have been filed. Upon

consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the opinion

of the court. The clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Defendant’s motion, as

supplemented, for relief under 28 U.S.C. §2255 (document 243) is DENIED WITH

PREJUDICE.” The clerk shall close the file.

SO ORDERED this 3d day of January, 2008.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cr-00013-RS Document 275 Filed 01/03/08 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:96cr64-RH/WCS

4:05cv309-RH/WCS

DANIEL DALMAU,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

ORDER DENYING §2255 MOTION

This matter is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (document 148), to which no objections have been filed. Upon

consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the opinion

of the court. Defendant’s motion to file a delayed motion under 28 U.S.C.

§2255(document 146) is DENIED. Defendant’s §2255 motion (document 147) is

DENIED as untimely. The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

SO ORDERED this 20th day of November, 2005.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:96-cr-00064-RH Document 149 Filed 11/21/05 Page 1 of 1
§ 504.3 Payment of fees. ( a ) Payment of user fees must accompany a culture deposit or request.
( b ) Payment shall be made by check, draft, money order, or *pay.gov,* payable to USDA, National Finance Center.
[80 FR 74966, Dec. 1, 2015]
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Brandy Smythe a/k/a Brandi * From the 104th District Court

Lynn Smythe of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 21096-B

Vs. No. 11-21-00238-CR * June 29, 2023

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.1 - SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

                             CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth A. McCullum, 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 Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2006-088
     (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 in order 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.   Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required
     in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
     disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has
     fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material
     respects;

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 Rule 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 certification above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

    The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., and its officers and agents

Date:  September 10, 2007


/s/ Kenneth A. McCullum

Kenneth A. McCullum
Senior officer in charge of securitization
Hartford Life Insurance Company, as depositor
§ 4284.925 Eligible uses of grant and Matching Funds. In general, grant and cost-share Matching Funds have the same use restrictions and must be used to fund only the costs for eligible purposes as defined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. ( a ) Planning Grant funds may be used to pay for a Qualified Consultant to conduct and develop a Feasibility Study, Business Plan, and/or Marketing Plan associated with the processing and/or marketing of a Value-added Agricultural Product. ( 1 ) Planning Grant funds may not be used to compensate Applicants or family members for participation in Feasibility Studies.
( 2 ) In-kind contribution of Matching Funds to cover Applicant or family member participation in planning activities is allowed so long as the value of such contribution does not exceed a maximum of 25 percent of the Total Project Costs and an adequate explanation of the basis for the valuation, referencing comparable market values, salary and wage data, expertise or experience of the contributor, per unit costs, industry norms, etc., is provided. Final valuation for Applicant or family member in-kind contributions is at the discretion of the Agency. Planning funds may not be used to evaluate the agricultural production of the commodity itself, other than to determine the project's input costs related to the feasibility of processing and marketing the Value-Added Agricultural Product.
( b ) Working capital funds may be used to pay the project's operational costs directly related to the processing and/or marketing of the Value-Added Agricultural Product. ( 1 ) Examples of eligible working capital expenses include designing or purchasing a financial accounting system for the project, paying salaries of employees without ownership or Immediate Family interest to process and/or market and deliver the Value-Added Agricultural Product to consumers, paying for raw commodity inventory (less than 50 percent of the amount required for the project) from an unaffiliated third party, necessary to produce the Value-Added Agricultural Product, and paying for a marketing campaign for the Value-Added Agricultural Product.
( 2 ) In-kind contributions may include appropriately valued inventory of raw commodity to be used in the project. In-kind contributions of Matching Funds may also include contributions of time spent on eligible tasks by Applicants or Applicant family members so long as the value of such contribution does not exceed a maximum of 25 percent of the Total Project Costs and an adequate explanation of the basis for the valuation, referencing comparable market values, salary and wage data, expertise or experience of the contributor, per unit costs, industry norms, etc. is provided. Final valuation for Applicant or family member in-kind contributions is at the discretion of the Agency.
**AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE**

 

>

This Amendment To Promissory Note (the “Amendment”), is entered into as of the ___ day of September, 2001, by and SUNWOOD VILLAGE JOINT VENTURE, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Nevada limited partnership (“Maker”), having its principal place of business c/o SPECS, Inc., Suite LH-06, 4200 Blue Ridge Boulevard, Kansas City, Missouri 64133, and FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK, a national banking association (“Lender”), having its principal office at 201 South Tryon Street, Suite 130, PMB Box #4, Charlotte, North Carolina

28202.

 

WHEREAS, Maker executed and delivered to Lender that certain Promissory Note (the “Original Note”) payable to the order of Lender in the original principal amount of TEN MILLION EIGHTY THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($10,080,000.00) dated as of August 1,2001, which Original Note evidences a loan in such amount made by Lender to Maker;

 

WHEREAS, the Original Note is secured by that certain Deed of Trust and Security Agreement (the “Deed of Trust”) dated as of August 1, 2001, from Maker, as grantor, to the trustee named in the Deed of Trust for benefit of Lender, as beneficiary, encumbering that certain real property situated in the County of Clark, State of Nevada, as more particularly described in Exhibit A to the Deed of Trust;

 

WHEREAS, Maker and Lender desire to amend the amount of the monthly interest and principal payments under the Original Note.

 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Maker and Lender hereby agree as follows:

 

|   | 1. | All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|

respective meanings ascribed to them in the Original Note.

 

2.        The second sentence of Section 1.02 is hereby deleted and the following is inserted in lieu thereof:

 

“Such principal and interest shall be payable in equal consecutive monthly installments of $67,910.83 each, beginning on the first day of the second full calendar month following the date of this Note (or on the first day of the first full calendar month following the date hereof, in the event the advance of the principal amount evidenced by this Note is the first day of a calendar month)(the “First Payment Date”), and continuing on the first day of each and every month thereafter (each, a “Payment Date”) through and including August 1, 

 

----
Case 4:20-cr-00041-AW-MAF   Document 28   Filed 02/04/21   Page 1 of 7

Case 4:20-cr-00041-AW-MAF   Document 28   Filed 02/04/21   Page 2 of 7

Case 4:20-cr-00041-AW-MAF   Document 28   Filed 02/04/21   Page 3 of 7

Case 4:20-cr-00041-AW-MAF   Document 28   Filed 02/04/21   Page 4 of 7

Case 4:20-cr-00041-AW-MAF   Document 28   Filed 02/04/21   Page 5 of 7

Case 4:20-cr-00041-AW-MAF   Document 28   Filed 02/04/21   Page 6 of 7

Case 4:20-cr-00041-AW-MAF   Document 28   Filed 02/04/21   Page 7 of 7
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Academic AchievementAccess to EducationCollege AttendanceCollege Bound StudentsCollege PreparationCollege StudentsEducational PracticesHigh SchoolsHigher EducationHispanic AmericansMigrant EducationSuccess

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
#### Robert F. Malerba et al., Respondents, v Incorporated Village of Huntington Bay et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated October 29, 1979, which denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Summary judgment in favor of the appellants should have been granted. Although a refusal by the police to render assistance to an individual can have serious effects, a municipality cannot be cast in damages for the police failure to perform unless the plaintiff can show that the police owed a “special duty” to him upon which he could rely *(Gordon v Holt,*65 AD2d 344, 350-351; *Dutton v City of Olean,*60 AD2d 335, affd 47 NY2d 756; *Murrain v Wilson Line,*270 App Div 372, affd 296 NY 845; *Evers v Westerberg,*38 AD2d 751). In this case, the plaintiffs were unable to make that showing. Damiani, J. P., Cohalan, Hargett and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
#### The State ex rel. Cuevas, Appellee, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellant.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Cuevas v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 349.]

(No. 96-515

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 14, 1998.)

*Philip A. Mamecheck,*for appellee.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Gerald H. Waterman,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Finding that the court of appeals decided this case on the authority of its case, *State ex rel. Draganic v. Indus. Comm.*(Sept. 22, 1994), Franklin App. No. 93APD10-1491, unreported, 1994 WL 521157, which case was subsequently reversed by this court in (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 461, 663 N.E.2d 929, we reverse *350the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause to that court for further proceedings in accordance with *State ex rel. Tapp v. Parsec, Inc.*(1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 417, 696 N.E.2d 591.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

TERRANCE WASHINGTON,

Petitioner,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv498-MW/MAF

MARK INCH,

Respondent.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

and Recommendation. ECF No. 11. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 11, is accepted and adopted as 

this Court’s opinion. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 10, is GRANTED. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Petitioner’s § 2254 petition, ECF No. 1, is 

DISMISSED. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Leave to appeal in forma 
2

pauperis is DENIED.” The Clerk shall close the file.

SO ORDERED on June 3, 2021.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge
```

[107th Congress Public Law 233]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ233.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 1480]]

Public Law 107-233
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To amend the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 to extend the deadline 
 for the INTELSAT initial public offering. <<NOTE: Oct. 1, 2002 -  [S. 
                                2810]>> 

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF IPO DEADLINE.

    Section 621(5)(A)(i) of the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 (47 
U.S.C. 763(5)(A)(i)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``October 1, 2001,'' and inserting 
        ``December 31, 2003,''; and
            (2) by striking ``December 31, 2002;'' and inserting ``June 
        30, 2004;''.

    Approved October 1, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 2810:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
            July 26, considered and passed Senate.
            Sept. 10, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
Exhibit 10.2


 


AMENDMENT
to WORK ORDER


 


This
Amendment GASOW-STAR100606-00.A.005 to Work Order (“WO”), GASOW-STAR100606-00 effective
as of April 1, 2009 (“Effective Date”), between StarTek USA Inc. (“StarTek”), a Delaware corporation,
and AT&T Mobility LLC, (“AT&T”)
a Delaware limited liability company, on behalf of itself and its Affiliates,
amends the work order described below.


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, AT&T and StarTek entered
into a Master Service Agreement on October 1, 2006 (the “MSA”);


 


WHEREAS AT&T and StarTek executed Work
Order GASOW-STAR100606-00 dated November 30, 2006 (“WO”) pursuant to the
MSA to provide services to AT&T Mobility LLC;


 


WHEREAS AT&T and StarTek desire to
amend the term of the WO;


 


NOW THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION
of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree to amend the WO as
follows:


 


1.  Section 3. “Term” of the WO is hereby
deleted in its entirety and it is replaced by the following:


 


“3. ‘The Term of this
SOW shall commence on November 30, 2006 (“Effective Date”), and shall
continue until midnight on June 30, 2009 (the “Initial Term).  The SOW may be terminated as allowed in the
Agreement or in this SOW.”


 


2.               Except as amended by this
Amendment, the WO is not otherwise modified, revoked or superseded and remains
in full force and effect.


 


3.               This amendment maintains
services pending approval of new work order.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties execute this
Amendment as of the Effective Date.


 


 


	
  StarTek
  USA Inc.

  	
   

  	
  AT&T
  Mobility LLC by its authorized

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Representative
  AT&T Services, Inc.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ A.L. Jones

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Jay Bishop

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Printed Name:

  	
  A.L. Jones

  	
   

  	
  Printed Name:

  	
  Jay Bishop

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
  CEO

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  AVP — Contracting/Sourcing Operations

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date:

  	
  4-7-2009

  	
   

  	
  Date:

  	
  31 Mar 2009

  



 


 


Proprietary
Information


The information contained in this
Agreement is not for use or  disclosure
outside AT&T, StarTek, their affiliated companies and their third party
representatives, except under written Agreement by the contracting Parties.
#### Agostino G. Paese, Respondent, v Patrick D. Pilla, as Mayor of the Village of Tarrytown, et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel petitioner’s reinstatement to the position of village engineer, which position had been abolished, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 17, 1979, which, *inter alia,*ordered petitioner’s reinstatement. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and proceeding dismissed on the merits. Pursuant to the remittitur by this court *(Paese v Pilla,*59 AD2d 701), a hearing was held before Special Term to determine if the board of trustees had acted in good faith in abolishing the petitioner’s position as village engineer. Contrary to the decision at Special Term (Beisheim, J.), we find no basis in the record for a finding of bad faith. The evidence shows that the board’s sole object was to achieve cost savings, and such economic motivation constitutes a good faith ground for abolishing a civil service position (see *Matter of Westchester County Civ. Serv. Employees Assn. v Cimino,*58 AD2d 869, affd 44 NY2d 985; *Matter of Dougherty v Makowski,*49 AD2d 424, app dsmd 41 NY2d 899). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.
10.003 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.210-1, Market Research, in solicitations and

contracts over $6 million, other than solicitations and contracts for the acquisition of commercial

products or commercial services.

Parent topic: Part 10 - Market Research