alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:03cr69-SPM

MARCUS NEAL MANNING,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

NOTICE OF INTENT TO REDUCE SENTENCE

Review of the record in this case reveals that the defendant, Marcus Neal

Manning, may be entitled to a sentence reduction based on a guideline

amendment that lowers the guideline sentencing range for certain categories of

offenses involving crack cocaine. U.S.S.G. Amend. 750. Amendment 750 was

made retroactive, effective November 1, 2011.

Manning was sentenced in 2004 to a term of 151 months. Manning was

subject to a 10-year minimum mandatory sentence and his guideline range was

151 to 188 months, based on a total offense level of 34.

Manning’s sentence was reduced to 121 months on March 21, 2008

pursuant to Amendment 706, which reduced his total offense level to 32 and his

guideline range to 121 to 151 months.

Under the recent retroactive amendment, Manning’s guideline range is

Case 4:03-cr-00069-MW-CAS Document 184 Filed 11/08/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

1201 to 121 months, based on a total offense level of 30.

As authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the court intends to enter an

order reducing Manning’s sentence to 120 months. Should there be objections

to this proposed action by the court, those objections must be filed by November

30, 2011. Copies of any such objections shall be served on all other interested

parties, i.e., the defendant, retained defense counsel if any, the United States

Public Defender, the United States Attorney, and the Bureau of Prisons, as

appropriate.

The clerk shall send a copy of this notice to the defendant, retained

defense counsel if any, the United States Public Defender, the United States

Attorney, and the Bureau of Prisons.

SO ORDERED this 8th day of November, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

1

 Due to the statutory mandatory minimum limitations, the guideline range

cannot be less than 10 years.

CASE NO.: 4:03cr69-SPM

Case 4:03-cr-00069-MW-CAS Document 184 Filed 11/08/11 Page 2 of 2
#### The State ex rel. Wilson, Appellant, *v.*City of Ashtabula; Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Wilson v. Ashtabula*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 401.]

(No. 97-2570

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 21, 1998.)

*Green, Haines, Sgambati Murphy & Macóla Co., L.P.A., Ronald E. Slipski*and *Barry Laine,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Laurel Blum Mazorow,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed. The cause is returned to the Industrial Commission for relief consistent with *State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm*(1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Cook, J., dissents.
Comprehensive Credit
Facility Agreement of Maximum Amount (“Credit Facility
Agreement”)
Entered into by and between Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd (“the Debtor”) and Shenzhen Branch,
Bank of
China (the
“Creditor”) Dated March 4th, 2009

    


    Main
articles:

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Contract
      number: Zhenzhongyin Exiezi 000024;

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Maximum
      amount of credit facilities to be provided: RMB 450
    million;

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Term:
      from March 4th,
      2009 to February 3rd,
      2010.

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Purpose
      of the loan is to provide working capital for the
    Debtor;

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Remedies
      in the event of breach of contract include adjustment of the credit
      amount, suspension of credit, imposition of punitive interest and overdue
      interest, an increase of guarantee deposit and the call back of loan
      principal and interest before
maturity.

            


    

    


    Headlines
of the articles omitted

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Procedure
      on using the comprehensive credit
facility

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Guarantee

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Declaration
      and promise of the Debtor

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Transferring
      of the credit facility under the maximum
amount

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Disputation
      settlement

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Fee

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Attachment

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Validity

            


    

    
      	
              Ø

            	
              Notification
#### § 29.2308 Tobacco.

Tobacco as it appears between the time it is cured and stripped from the stalk, or primed and cured, and the time it enters into the different manufacturing processes. The acts of stemming, sweating, and conditioning are not regarded as manufacturing processes. Tobacco, as used in these standards, does not include manufactured or semimanufactured products, stems, cuttings, clippings, trimmings, siftings, or dust.

[37 FR 13521, July 11, 1972. Redesignated at 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
```

[107th Congress Public Law 214]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ214.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 1053]]

Public Law 107-214
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the route in 
  Arizona and New Mexico which the Navajo and Mescalero Apache Indian 
  tribes were forced to walk in 1863 and 1864, for study for potential 
 addition to the National Trails System. <<NOTE: Aug. 21, 2002 -  [H.R. 
                                1384]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in <<NOTE: Long Walk National Historic Trail 
Study Act.>> Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 16 USC 1241 note.>> SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Long Walk National Historic Trail 
Study Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) Beginning in the fall of 1863 and ending in the winter 
        of 1864, the United States Government forced thousands of 
        Navajos and Mescalero Apaches to relocate from their ancestral 
        lands to Fort Sumner, New Mexico, where the tribal members were 
        held captive, virtually as prisoners of war, for over 4 years.
            (2) Thousands of Native Americans died at Fort Sumner from 
        starvation, malnutrition, disease, exposure, or conflicts 
        between the tribes and United States military personnel.

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION FOR STUDY.

    Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(c)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(____) The Long Walk Trail, a series of routes which the Navajo 
and Mescalero Apache Indian tribes were forced to walk beginning in the 
fall of 1863 as a result of their removal by the United States 
Government from their ancestral lands, generally located within a 
corridor extending through portions of Canyon de Chelley, Arizona, and 
Albuquerque, Canyon Blanco, Anton Chico, Canyon Piedra Pintado, and Fort 
Sumner, New Mexico.''.

    Approved August 21, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1384:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-222 (Comm. on Resources).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 107-184 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 147 (2001):
                                    Oct. 2, considered and passed House.
                                                        Vol. 148 (2002):
                                    Aug. 1, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
imb
                                                              Indymac


                  REG AB 1123 Statement of Compliance


I am an authorized officer for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B, the servicer for
the transactions listed on the attached schedule and I certify:

a) A review of IndyMac Bank's activities during the reporting period and of
its performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made under
my supervision.
b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, except as set forth
below IndyMac Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations under the agreement
in all material respects throughout the reporting period.
c) None

                                    By: /s/ Robert M. Abramian
                                    ----------------------------
                                        Robert M. Abramian
                                        First Vice President
                                        Home Loans Servicing
                                        Investor Reporting
                                        Indymac Bank
                                    By: /s/ Bart Vincent
                                    ----------------------------
                                        Bart Vincent
                                        First Vice President
                                        HLS-Finance
                                        Financial
                                        Indymac Bank

Prepared for:    Aurora Loan Services
Date:            February 28, 2007
Ref:             EXHIBIT A

                                                www.indymacbank.com

   7700 W. Parmer Lane, Bldg D, Austin, TX 78729    Tel:









                               EXHIBIT A

137   LXS 2006-12N LB 7/27/06
139   LXS 2006-11 7/27/06
140   LMT 2006-4 7/28/06
187   ITF SARM 2006-8 (LB) 8/31/06
188   LXS 2006-14N (LB) 8/31/06
193   ITF LXS 2006-13 8/31/06
234   ITF SARM 2006-4 04/28/06
238   LXS 2006-7 04/28/06
276   ITF LXS 2006-8 05/31/06
286   ITF LXS 2006-1 ON (6-30-06)
294   LMT 2006-5 8-31-06
374   ITF LXS 2006-16N 092906
377   ITF LXS 2006-15 092906
433   LMT 2006-6 09/29/06
441   ITF LXS 2006-17 10/30/06
443   LMT 2006-7 10/30/06
447   LXS 2006-18N 11/29/2006
448   LXS 2006-19 11/29/2006
449   LMT 2006-8 11/29/2006
903   ITF LXS 2006-2N 1/31/06
4108  LMT 2006-9 12/29/06
4109  LXS 2006-20 12/29/06
16.205-3 Limitations.       This contract type shall not be used unless-                                       (a)                    						            Negotiations have established that-                                                         (1)                          								                The conditions for use of a firm-fixed-price contract are not present (see 16.202-2); and                                                            (2)                          								                A fixed-price incentive contract would not be more appropriate;                                                                             (b)                    						            The contractor’s accounting system is adequate for price redetermination;                                          (c)                    						            The prospective pricing periods can be made to conform with operation of the contractor’s accounting system; and                                          (d)                    						            There is reasonable assurance that price redetermination actions will take place promptly at the specified times.    **Parent topic:** 16.205 Fixed-price contracts with prospective price redetermination.
#### Lila Lish, Respondent, v Abbott Lish, Appellant.

— In a matrimonial action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 4, 1979, which denied his motion for leave to amend his bill of particulars and granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment dismissing his counterclaim for a constructive trust. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment denied and defendant’s motion for leave to amend his bill of particulars granted, on condition that defendant’s attorney pay the sum of $250 to plaintiff within 20 days after service upon him of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof; in the event that such condition is not complied with, then order affirmed with $50 costs and disbursements. Special Term improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for leave to amend his bill of particulars. There was no showing that the plaintiff would be prejudiced as a result of the defendant’s proposed amendment, which asserted the same cause of action and theory of liability as the defendant’s original bill of particulars. However, in granting defendant’s motion to amend in the interest of justice, this court does not countenance his counsel’s delay in so moving, and, for that reason, we have directed him to pay plaintiff $250. Upon amendment of defendant’s bill of particulars, issues of fact are presented which require a trial. Therefore, Special Term’s granting of plaintiffs motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant’s counterclaim for a constructive trust must be reversed. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00389-CV

Peter David Wagner d/b/a Preservation of Your Home and Educational Ministries, 

Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Savings and Mortgage Lending, Appellee

FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY 

NO. D-1-GN-20-004218, THE HONORABLE JAN SOIFER, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s brief on appeal was originally due on September 23, 2021. On 

counsel’s motion, the time for filing was extended to January 7, 2022. Appellant’s counsel has 

now filed a second motion, requesting that the Court extend the time for filing appellant’s brief. 

We grant the motion for extension of time and order appellant to file a brief no later than 

January 28, 2022. No further extension of time will be granted and failure to comply with this 

order may result in dismissal of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a).

It is ordered on January 7, 2022.

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Triana
#### § 51.2080 Determination of grade.

In grading the inspection sample, the percentage of loose hulls, pieces of shell, chaff and foreign material is determined on the basis of weight. Next, the percentages of nuts which are of dissimilar varieties, undersize or have adhering hulls or defective shells are determined by count, using an adequate portion of the total sample. Finally, the nuts in that portion of the sample are cracked and the percentage having internal defects is determined on the basis of weight.

[78 FR 14908, Mar. 8, 2013]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           22142
<SECURITIES>                                       700
<RECEIVABLES>                                     6594
<ALLOWANCES>                                      8240
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 25742
<PP&E>                                          128799
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  181026
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3609
<BONDS>                                          15700
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      142141
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    181026
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  9755
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      340
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1146
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   8269
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               8269
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      8269
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    13.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    13.02
        

</TABLE>
38.201 Coordination requirements.

(a) Subject to interagency agreements, contracting officers having responsibility for awarding

Federal Supply Schedule contracts shall coordinate and obtain approval of the General Services

Administration’s Federal Supply Service (FSS) before-

(1) Establishing new schedules;

(2) Discontinuing existing schedules;

(3) Changing the scope of agency or geographical coverage of existing schedules; or

(4) Adding or deleting special item numbers, national stock numbers, or revising their description.

(b) Requests should be forwarded to the:

General Services Administration Federal Supply Service Office of Acquisition (FC) Washington,DC

20406.

Parent topic: Subpart 38.2 - Establishing and Administering Federal Supply Schedules
#### § 51.644 Slightly misshapen.

*Slightly misshapen* means that the fruit is not of the shape characteristic of the variety but is not appreciably elongated or pointed or otherwise deformed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


CIM Trucking, Inc., an Illinois corporation
Firma, Inc., a California corporation
Firma Plastic Co., Inc., a California corporation
Mac Leod Metals Co., a California corporation
Metal Management Aerospace, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Metal Management Alabama, Inc., a Delaware corporation
MTLM Arizona, Inc., an Arizona corporation
Metal Management Arizona, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company
Metal Management Connecticut, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Metal Management Gulf Coast, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Metal Management Indiana, Inc., a Illinois corporation
Metal Management Memphis, L.L.C., a Tennessee limited liability company
Metal Management Midwest, Inc., a Illinois corporation
Metal Management Mississippi, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company
Metal Management Northeast, Inc., a New Jersey corporation
Metal Management Ohio, Inc., a Ohio corporation
Metal Management S&A Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Metal Management Pittsburgh, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Metal Management Realty, Inc., an Arizona corporation
Metal Management Stainless & Alloy, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Metal Management Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Metal Management West, Inc., a Colorado corporation
Metal Management West Coast Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation
metals.com.Inc., a Delaware corporation
Proler Southwest Inc., a Texas corporation
Reserve Iron & Metal Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership
Trojan Trading Co., a California corporation

Southern Recycling, L.L.C., a Louisiana limited liability company (ownership of
a 28.5% interest)

Roundout Iron & Metal, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company (ownership
of 50%)
§ 4284.950 Award process. ( a ) *Selection of applications for funding and for potential funding.* The Agency will select and rank applications for funding based on the score an application has received in response to the proposal evaluation criteria, compared to the scores of other value-added applications received in the same Fiscal Year. Higher scoring applications will receive first consideration for funding. The Agency may set a minimally acceptable score for funding, which will be noted in the published program notice. The Agency will notify Applicants, in writing, whether or not they have been selected for funding. For those Applicants not selected for funding, the Agency will provide a brief explanation for why they were not selected.
( b ) *Ranked applications not funded.* A ranked application that is not funded in the Fiscal Year in which it was submitted will not be carried forward into the next Fiscal Year. The Agency will notify the Applicant in writing.
( c ) *Intergovernmental review.* If State or local governments raise objections to a proposed project under the intergovernmental review process that are not resolved within 90 days of the Agency's award announcement date, the Agency will rescind the award and will provide the Applicant with a written notice to that effect. This is prior to the signing of a Grant Agreement. The Agency, in its sole discretion, may extend the 90-day period if it appears resolution is imminent.
32.204 Procedures for contracting officerspecified commercial contract financing.

The financing terms shall be included in the solicitation. Contract financing shall not be a factor in

the evaluation of resulting proposals, and proposals of alternative financing terms shall not be

accepted (but see 14.208 and 15.206 concerning amendments of solicitations). However, an offer

stating that the contracting officer-specified contract financing terms will not be used by the offeror

does not alter the evaluation of the offer, nor does it render the offer nonresponsive or otherwise

unacceptable. In the event of award to an offeror who declined the proposed contract financing, the

contract financing provisions shall not be included in the resulting contract. Contract financing shall

not be a basis for adjusting offerors’ proposed prices, because the effect of contract financing is

reflected in each offeror’s proposed prices.

Parent topic: Subpart 32.2 - Commercial Product and Commercial Service Purchase Financing
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Attribution TheoryClassroom EnvironmentCognitive StyleCollege InstructionCollege StudentsConstructivism (Learning)Higher EducationLearning TheoriesLocus of ControlResearch and DevelopmentSelf EfficacySocializationStudent DevelopmentTeaching MethodsTeaching ModelsTheory Practice RelationshipUndergraduate Study

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget