alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE OF DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & ENViRONMENTAL CONTROL DIVISION OF AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT 156 S. STATE STREET TELEPHONE: (302) 739 - 9402 SECTION DOVER, DELAWARE 19901 FAX No.: (302) 739 ­ 3106

CERTIFICATION September 15, 2009
I hereby certify that a public hearing was held August 27,2009, on the

### Amendmentto theState Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisionfor Ozone, Fine ParticulateMatter (PM 2

### .sJ, NAAQS, and Visibility (as submittedon December, 2007). The purpose ofthis amended SIP is to respond to the EPA's requests for Delaware to clarify and provide supplemental language to Delaware's 

### State Implementation Plan Revisionfor Ozone, FineParticulateMatter (PM 2

### .sJ, and Visibility, which was originally submitted on December 17,2007. The effective date ofthis amended Revision is September 1, 2009. I further certify that the hearing was held in accordance with the notice required by Subsection 51.102 of40 CFR 51.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Case 4:20-cr-00044-MW-MAF   Document 27   Filed 03/18/21   Page 1 of 6

Case 4:20-cr-00044-MW-MAF   Document 27   Filed 03/18/21   Page 2 of 6

Case 4:20-cr-00044-MW-MAF   Document 27   Filed 03/18/21   Page 3 of 6

Case 4:20-cr-00044-MW-MAF   Document 27   Filed 03/18/21   Page 4 of 6

Case 4:20-cr-00044-MW-MAF   Document 27   Filed 03/18/21   Page 5 of 6

Case 4:20-cr-00044-MW-MAF   Document 27   Filed 03/18/21   Page 6 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:02cr52-SPM

ERIC EUGENE BALCOM,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON 2255 MOTION

THIS CAUSE comes before the court on Defendant Eric Eugene Balcom’s

motion (doc. 107) for an extension of time to file objections to the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation dated April 2, 2008 (doc. 101), for denial of

his 2255 motion. The Court has already adopted the report and recommendation

and entered judgment (docs. 105 and 106). Defendant has not filed any

objections during the extended period that he requested. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion (doc. 107) for an extension

of time to file objections is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of December, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cr-00052-RH-CAS Document 132 Filed 12/11/08 Page 1 of 1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Martyn A. Powell, President, Director and Principal Financial Officer of Missouri River and Gold Gem Corporation (the Registrant) do 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 my knowledge:



1.

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 Registrant.

Date:  October 17, 2003

/s/ Martyn A. Powell



Martyn A. Powell

President, Director and Principal Financial Officer
7.108 Additional requirements for

telecommuting.

In accordance with 41 U.S.C. 3306(f), an agency shall generally not discourage a contractor from

allowing its employees to telecommute in the performance of Government contracts. Therefore,

agencies shall not-

(a) Include in a solicitation a requirement that prohibits an offeror from permitting its employees to

telecommute unless the contracting officer first determines that the requirements of the agency,

including security requirements, cannot be met if telecommuting is permitted. The contracting

officer shall document the basis for the determination in writing and specify the prohibition in the

solicitation; or

(b) When telecommuting is not prohibited, unfavorably evaluate an offer because it includes

telecommuting, unless the contracting officer first determines that the requirements of the agency,

including security requirements, would be adversely impacted if telecommuting is permitted. The

contracting officer shall document the basis for the determination in writing and address the

evaluation procedures in the solicitation.

Parent topic: Subpart 7.1 - Acquisition Plans
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>       5

<S>                                                      <C>
   <PERIOD-TYPE>                                         9-MOS
   <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1999
   <PERIOD-START>                                        JAN-01-1999
   <PERIOD-END>                                          SEP-30-1999
   <CASH>                                                 59,373,542
   <SECURITIES>                                                    0
   <RECEIVABLES>                                           7,296,630
   <ALLOWANCES>                                                    0
   <INVENTORY>                                                     0
   <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       72,416,706
   <PP&E>                                                  7,839,516
   <DEPRECIATION>                                                  0
   <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        153,725,494
   <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  13,651,878
   <BONDS>                                                         0
   <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
   <PREFERRED>                                                     0
   <COMMON>                                                  407,588
   <OTHER-SE>                                            101,938,731
   <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          153,725,494
   <SALES>                                                19,080,519
   <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       19,080,519
   <CGS>                                                           0
   <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                0
   <TOTAL-COSTS>                                          46,911,607
   <LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
   <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     (1,407,019)
   <INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (29,238,107)
   <INCOME-TAX>                                                    0
   <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (29,238,107)
   <DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
   <EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
   <CHANGES>                                                       0
   <NET-INCOME>                                          (63,779,992)
   <EPS-BASIC>                                               (1.81)
   <EPS-DILUTED>                                               (1.81)


</TABLE>
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

ROBERT DONNELL DONALDSON, Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

, Respondent

,

AND

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

Intervenor.

______________________

2013

- 3097

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit System s Protection
Board in No. DC300A120619 -I-1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________ O R D E R

Robert Donnell Donaldson moves without opposition to reform the caption to designate the Merit Systems Protection Board as the respondent. Mr. Donaldson also

moves to stay briefing . The Department of Homeland Case: 13-3097 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 06/19/2013ROBERT DONALDSON v. MSPB 2

Security opposes. The Department of Homeland Security moves unopposed for leave to intervene.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2), the Board is desi gnated a s the respondent when the Board’ s decision co ncerns the procedure or jurisdiction of the Board. The employing a gency is designated as the respondent when the Board reaches the merits of the underlying case. Here, the Board dismissed Mr. Donaldson’s petition for lack of juri sdiction. Thus, the Board is the proper respondent in this petition for review.

Accordingl y,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

1) The motion to reform the caption with the Board as respondent is granted.

2) The motion to intervene is granted. The revised official caption is reflected above.

3) The motion to stay is denied. Mr. Donaldson’s opening brief is due wit hin 30 days of the filing of this

order.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

Daniel E. O’Toole

Clerk

s25 Case: 13-3097 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 06/19/2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             814
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        9
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    15
<PP&E>                                           2,140
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (296)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,682
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               65
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,617
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,682
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    76
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    88
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  30
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (32)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2


                     CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal
Procedures) of the United States Code and shall not be relied on by any person
for any other purpose.

         The undersigned, who is the Chief Financial Officer of Orion
HealthCorp, Inc. (the "small business issuer"), hereby certifies as follows:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the small business issuer (the
"Report"), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the small
business issuer.

Dated this 9th day of August, 2006.


/s/ Stephen H. Murdock
---------------------------------------------
Stephen H. Murdock, Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the small business issuer and
will be retained by the small business issuer and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Cite as 2015 Ark. 47

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CR-14-1089

DERRICK ROBERTS

 PETITIONER

V.

HONORABLE LARRY CHANDLER,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

 RESPONDENT

Opinion Delivered February 12, 2015

PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF

MANDAMUS

[COLUMBIA COUNTY CIRCUIT

COURT, NO. 14CR-09-113]

PETITION MOOT.

PER CURIAM

Now before us is a pro se petition for writ of mandamus filed here on December 17,

2014, by petitioner Derrick Roberts. On January 14, 2014, petitioner filed in the Columbia

County Circuit Court a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis. In the mandamus petition,

petitioner seeks to have Circuit Judge Larry Chandler enter a final order on the coram-nobis

petition.

On December 23, 2014, Judge Chandler timely filed a response to the petition in which

he stated that he was retiring from the bench on December 31, 2014, at which time the coramnobis petition would be reassigned. Because the respondent, as of the date of this opinion, is

no longer responsible for acting on petitioner’s pending pleading, this mandamus action is moot.

Nevertheless, we take this opportunity to note that petitioner’s coram-nobis petition has been

pending for more than one year. The reassignment process, if it has not already been completed,

should be carried out promptly so that action can be taken on the pleading. The prompt

resolution of all matters before a court is vital to the administration of justice. McNichols v.

Elmore, 2014 Ark. 133 (per curiam).
Cite as 2015 Ark. 47

Petition moot.

Derrick Roberts, pro se petitioner.

Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Rebecca Kane, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

2
#### § 3430.502 Definitions.

The definitions applicable to the competitive grant programs under this subpart include:

*Integrated program* means a program that brings the three agricultural knowledge components (*i.e.,* research, extension, and education) together around a problem or activity through the award of integrated projects and single component projects.

*Integrated project* means a project that brings at least two out of three agricultural knowledge components (*i.e.,* research, extension, and education) together around a problem or activity.
#### Pinewood Associates, Inc., Appellant, v Stephanie Wilcox, Respondent.

[815 NYS2d 706]

In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to charge the defendant a vacancy allowance increase pursuant to the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (L 1974, ch 576, sec 4, § 6, as amended [McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY § 8626 (g)]), the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered July 6, 2005, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action and *882granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment “to the extent of dismissing the complaint.”

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the words “to the extent of dismissing the complaint” and “and is therefore entitled to dismissal of the complaint” from the decretal paragraph thereof; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendant, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not entitled to charge the defendant a vacancy allowance increase pursuant to the Emergency Tenant Protection Act, and the second counterclaim is severed.

The plaintiff holds the shares and proprietary lease appurtenant to the subject rent-stabilized apartment. The defendant is the current tenant.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, it was not entitled to charge the defendant a vacancy allowance increase pursuant to the Emergency Tenant Protection Act and attendant regulations *(see*McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY § 8626 [g]; 9 NYCRR 2502.7 [b]) when the defendant, in 2003, succeeded to the tenancy of her late mother, Dorothea Wilcox. Under the plain meaning of the statute, such allowance is payable only by each *second*succeeding tenant *(see*McKinney’s Uncons Laws § 8626 Eg]). At the time section 8626 (g) went into effect, on June 19, 1997 *(see*L 1997, ch 116, §§ 23, 46), Dorothea Wilcox was the tenant of record. Therefore, the defendant is only the first succeeding tenant, and no vacancy allowance increase is owed.

Since this is a declaratory judgment action, the Supreme Court erred in directing the dismissal of the complaint. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not entitled to charge the defendant a vacancy allowance increase with respect to the subject apartment *(see Lanza v Wagner,*11 NY2d 317 [1962], *appeal dismissed*371 US 74 [1962], *cert denied*371 US 901 [1962]; *Jenkins-Watson v Golabi Holdings, LLC,*26 AD3d 467 [2006]). Florio, J.P., Luciano, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ, concur.
#### § 402.3 OMB control numbers.

The information collection activity associated with this rule has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) under OMB control number 0563-0053.

[61 FR 42985, Aug. 20, 1996, as amended at 69 FR 48730, Aug. 10, 2004]
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2021195DE.01000901.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 3.6.2021 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 195/9 |

---

Berichtigung der Richtlinie (EU) 2021/555 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 24. März 2021 über die Kontrolle des Erwerbs und des Besitzes von Waffen

(
[Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 115 vom 6. April 2021](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2021_115_R_TOC)
)

Auf Seite 17, Artikel 18 Absatz 4

Anstatt:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „(4) | Die zuständigen Behörden der Mitgliedstaaten tauschen auf elektronischem Wege Informationen über die für die Verbringung von Feuerwaffen in einen anderen Mitgliedstaat erteilten Genehmigungen und Informationen über nach Maßgabe von Artikel 9 und 10 aus Gründen der Sicherheit im Zusammenhang mit der Zuverlässigkeit der betreffenden Person versagte Genehmigungen aus.“ |

muss es heißen:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „(4) | Die zuständigen Behörden der Mitgliedstaaten tauschen auf elektronischem Wege Informationen über die für die Verbringung von Feuerwaffen in einen anderen Mitgliedstaat erteilten Genehmigungen und Informationen über nach Maßgabe von Artikel 9 und 10 aus Gründen der Sicherheit oder im Zusammenhang mit der Zuverlässigkeit der betreffenden Person versagte Genehmigungen aus.“ |

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 3:20cr65/MCR

HILARIO SANTOS-HERNANDEZ

 /

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge, to which there has been no timely objections, and subject to this Court’s

consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(3), the plea of

guilty oftheDefendant,HILARIO SANTOS-HERNANDEZ, toCounts One andTwo

of the Indictment is hereby ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court

for sentencing as directed.

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of December 2020.

 s/M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00065-MCR Document 28 Filed 12/02/20 Page 1 of 1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

GARY LEE SEYMOUR

DOC # T77153,

 Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-214-TKW-MJF

RICKY DIXON, SECRETARY

OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

 Defendants.

/

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Ricky Dixon, Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections

(“Defendant”), provide notice, through undersigned counsel, that Settlement has 

been reached in this case, and the documentation is currently being worked on.

Defendants and Plaintiff require thirty (30) days in which to complete the required 

settlement documentation. Once the documentation is completed and the terms of 

the settlement are fulfilled, Plaintiff and Defendants will file a Joint Motion for 

Voluntary Dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants.

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 99 Filed 03/17/23 Page 1 of 2
2

Respectfully Submitted,

ASHLEY MOODY 

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Office of the Attorney General

The Capitol, PL-01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

Telephone: (850) 414-3300

Facsimile: (850) 488-4872

/s Erik Kverne

Erik Kverne

Assistant Attorney General

Florida Bar No. 99829

Erik.Kverne@myfloridalegal.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice

of Settlement was e-filed electronically and served through CM/ECF on Plaintiff’s 

counsel of record on March 17, 2023.

/s Erik Kverne

Erik Kverne

Assistant Attorney General

Florida Bar No. 99829

Erik.Kverne@myfloridalegal.com

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 99 Filed 03/17/23 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:96-cr-00005-MP

CLARENCE JOHNSON, JR,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 52, Motion to obtain credit for time served by

Clarence Johnson, Jr. On July 18, 1996, defendant Johnson was sentenced to a term of 262

months for possession of firearms and ammunition by a convicted felon. Johnson was

subsequently sentenced by the state to a term of 4 years, 8 month, and 24 days for the crime of

burglary of a dwelling. Johnson was released from state custody on May 8, 2000 at which time

the federal sentence commenced. Johnson now requests credit toward the federal sentence for

time spent in state custody.

At the Court’s request, the government has filed a response to Defendant’s motion. As

the government explains, the court has previously expressed its clear intent that the sentences not

run concurrent. These are separate and unrelated offenses and should receive separate and

distinct punishments. Moreover, Defendant’s request is a challenge to the government's

execution rather than the imposition of his federal sentence, and is therefore not properly brought

by motion in the underlying criminal proceedings, but by way of petition for habeas corpus relief

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and filed in the district of confinement (currently the Middle District of

Case 1:96-cr-00005-MW-GRJ Document 57 Filed 05/31/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Florida.) after Defendant’s proper exhaustion of administrative remedies. Accordingly, it is

hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Defendant’s motion to obtain credit for time served, Doc. 52, is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of May, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 1:96-cr-00005-MP

Case 1:96-cr-00005-MW-GRJ Document 57 Filed 05/31/11 Page 2 of 2