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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 5:99cr15(7)/RS

FELIPE GUERRA JAIMES, et al,

Defendants.

___________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the communication (Doc. 1631) from Defendant Felipe Guerra

Jaimes, in which he requests “a copy of his trial transcripts without a cost to him.” 

Defendant Jaimes pled guilty (Doc. 1289) on May 21, 2002, and was sentenced

(Doc. 1307) on August 20, 2002. There was not a trial of the charge against Defendant

Jaimes; therefore, there is no trial transcript. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Defendant

Jaimes’ conviction and sentence (Doc. 1472). Defendant’s §2255 motion was denied

on January 26, 2005 (Doc. 1576). Defendant did not timely appeal the denial of his

§2255 motion. 

Defendant Jaimes has previously filed a Motion To Furnishing To The Petitioner

A Copy Of His Trial Transcripts Without Cost (Doc. 1528), which was denied on August

10, 2004 (Doc. 1529). Defendant alludes in his communication (Doc. 1631) that he

requires trial transcripts because “Petitioner he have this case pending appeal on

Certiorari petition, to the United States Supreme requesting relief, on Certiorari

proceedings, on the filing to the Supreme Court of out time appeal brief...” There is no

showing in the record that Defendant has in fact filed anything seeking further review of

Case 5:99-cr-00015-SPM-MD Document 1632 Filed 07/20/07 Page 1 of 2
his conviction and sentence. 

Doc. 1329 in the docket is an Eleventh Circuit Transcript Information Form

completed and filed by Defendant Jaimes’ federal public defender requesting copies of

motion hearings on March 12, 2002; plea hearings on May 15 and 21, 2002; and the

sentencing on August 19, 2002. The requested transcripts were filed by the court

reporter with the court and were subsequently transmitted to the Eleventh Circuit (See

Doc. 1422). Defendant’s appeal to the Eleventh Circuit was completed, which leads to

the conclusion that Defendant’s appeal counsel had copies of the hearing transcripts. 

Once again, Defendant has not made a showing that the pretrial transcripts,

which were prepared at the request of his federal public defender appeal counsel and

copies of which presumably provided him at that time, “are necessary to the resolution

of an issue or issues he has presented in a non-frivolous pending collateral proceeding.” 

Hanson v. United States, 956 F.2d 245, 248 (11th Cir. 1992); see also, Bentley v. United

States, 431 F.2d 250 (6th Cir. 1979). 

Defendant’s communication (Doc. 1631) also contends that the Freedom of

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §5.2, requires that he be provided transcripts. The Freedom

of Information Act does not apply to federal courts.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Felipe Guerra Jaimes’ communication

requesting transcripts (Doc. 1631) is denied.

ORDERED on July 20, 2007.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:99-cr-00015-SPM-MD Document 1632 Filed 07/20/07 Page 2 of 2
32.009-1 General.       (a)                                                         (1)                         Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3903(a), agencies other than the Department of Defense (DoD) shall provide accelerated payments, to the fullest extent permitted by law, with a goal of 15 days after receipt of a proper invoice and all other required documentation, if a specific payment date is not established by contract, to—                                                                           (i)                               Small business contractors; and                                                                              (ii)                               Prime contractors that subcontract with a small business concern, if the prime contractor agrees to make payments to the small business subcontractor within 15 days of receiving the accelerated payment from the Government, after receipt of a proper invoice and all other required documentation from the small business subcontractor, to the maximum extent practicable, without any further consideration from or fees charged to the subcontractor.                                                                                                           (2)                         Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 3801(b), DoD shall provide accelerated payments, to the fullest extent permitted by law, with a goal of 15 days after receipt of a proper invoice and all other required documentation, to—                                                                           (i)                               Small business contractors; and                                                                              (ii)                               Prime contractors that subcontract with a small business concern, if the prime contractor agrees to make payments to the small business subcontractor within 15 days of receiving the accelerated payment from the Government, after receipt of a proper invoice and all other required documentation from the small business subcontractor, to the maximum extent practicable, without any further consideration from or fees charged to the subcontractor.                                                                                                                            (b)                   This acceleration does not provide any new rights under the Prompt Payment Act and does not affect the application of the Prompt Payment Act late payment interest provisions.                                          (c)                   Agencies may use the Governmentwide commercial purchase card as a method of payment (see 32.1108) to facilitate accelerated payment, to earn refunds, and to reduce invoice processing costs.    **Parent topic:** 32.009 Providing accelerated payments to small business contractors and to prime contractors that subcontract with a small business concern.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

PHILIP JUDE MORAN

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-314-RV-MJF

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Respondents.

/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation dated December 1, 2020. (Doc. 4). Petitioner was provided a 

copy of the report and recommendation and was afforded an opportunity to file 

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections 

have been filed.

Having considered the report and recommendation and all objections thereto 

timely filed, I conclude that the report and recommendation should be adopted.

Case 5:20-cv-00314-RV-MJF Document 5 Filed 01/08/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation dated December 

1, 2020 (Doc. 4) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 

3. The clerk of court shall close this case file and send Petitioner the form 

petition for use in § 2254 cases.

DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of January, 2020.

/s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00314-RV-MJF Document 5 Filed 01/08/21 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION 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

In connection with the Annual Report of Liberty Energy Corp. (formerly DMA
Minerals Inc.) (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending July 30, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Daniel Martinez-Atkinson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
12th day of November, 2009.


/s/ Daniel Martinez-Atkinson
-------------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:Budget of the United States government. Government-wide performance plan.**
 
1999 | 2000
 
SuDoc Number:PREX 2.8:
Item Number:0853 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000501438
 
February 12, 2018
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Isaiah McCoy, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed and matter remitted to Monroe County 'Court for a hearing in accordance with the following Memorandum: On June 1, 1967 defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the- second degree in satisfaction of .an indictment charging him with the crimes of assault first degree and illegal possession of a weapon. The gravamen of the first count consisted of pointing a loaded revolver at the complainant. No claim is made that defendant fired the alleged weapon. Upon the plea, defendant denied using or having a gun, whereupon the court refused to accept his plea and suggested that defendant further discuss the case with his lawyer “ about what the facts of life are here”. A few moments later, defendant returned to the court and stated he did have a -gun. Upon the present application, defendant contends that upon all the facts his plea was coerced. The allegations of the petition mandate a hearing .as to whether defendant’s plea was a voluntary act. This, of course, requires an examination of all the surrounding circumstances in order to ascertain whether the plea was the result of a reasoned decision or the product of unreasonable fear and coercion. The hearing should be held before .a judge other than the one who presided at the trial, since he is a potential witness at the hearing. (Appeal from order of Monroe County Court, denying, without a hearing, motion to vacate judgment of conviction for assault, second degree, rendered June 22, 1967.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Witmer, Gabrielli, Moule and Bastow, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Cheryl Zaneski, Appellant, v State of New York, Division of State Police, et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed December 13, 1978, which reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s decision allowing the claim and found that the accident and death did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The board found: "Based on the testimony of the witnesses, the golf tournament was not sponsored by the employer, attendance of the tournament was voluntary and time off was charged to employees’ leave time, there was no control or monies advanced by the employer, that decedent’s death did not arise out of and in the course of employment.” There is substantial evidence to sustain the determination of the board. The essential nexus between the golf tournament and the employer has not been established *(Matter of Tedesco v General Elec. Co.,*305 NY 544; *Matter of Wilson v General Motors Corp.,*298 NY 468; *Matter of Dapp v New York State Liq. Auth.,*50 AD2d 250). Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Staley, Jr., Main, Mikoll and Casey, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMES ARTHUR LEE,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:20cv549–WS/MJF

MARK INCH, STARLING

BRIEF, and M. HURST,

Defendants.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

No. 4) docketed December 1, 2020. The magistrate judge recommends that the

plaintiff's case be dismissed pursuant to the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g). The plaintiff has filed no objections to the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation. 

As did the magistrate judge, the undersigned finds that the plaintiff is barred

under § 1915(g) from proceeding in forma pauperis in this case. 

Case 4:20-cv-00549-WS-MJF Document 5 Filed 01/05/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 4) is hereby

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. The plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 2) to proceed in forma pauperis is

DENIED.

3. The plaintiff’s complaint and this action are DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE to the plaintiff’s initiating a new cause of action accompanied by the

$400.00 filing fee in its entirety.

4. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: “This case is dismissed without

prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” The clerk shall note on the docket that

this case was dismissed under § 1915(g). 

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of January , 2021.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00549-WS-MJF Document 5 Filed 01/05/21 Page 2 of 2
§ 4287.113 Release of collateral. ( a ) Within the parameters of paragraph (c) of this section, lenders may, over the life of the loan, release collateral (other than personal and corporate guarantees) without Agency concurrence if the proceeds generated are used to pay down debt in order of lien priority, reduce the guaranteed loan or to acquire replacement collateral. Working assets, such as accounts receivable, inventory, and work-in-progress that are routinely depleted or sold and proceeds used for the normal course of business operations may be used in and released for routine business purposes without prior concurrence of the Agency as long as the loan is not in monetary default or liquidation.
( b ) If a release of collateral does not meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, the lender must complete a written evaluation to justify the release and obtain written Agency concurrence in advance of the release.
( c ) Collateral must remain sufficient to provide for adequate collateral coverage for the outstanding guaranteed loan(s). For a release of collateral request when the Borrower is not in monetary default or liquidation, the lender must support all releases of chattel collateral with a value exceeding $250,000 and real estate collateral with a value exceeding $500,000 with a current appraisal on the collateral being released and otherwise meets the requirements of § 4279.144 of this chapter. All other release of collateral requests must meet the appraisal requirements of § 4279.144 of this chapter. The cost of this appraisal will not be paid for by the Agency. The Agency may, at its discretion, require an appraisal of the remaining collateral in cases where it has been determined that the Agency may be adversely affected by the release of collateral. The sale or release of the collateral must be based on an arm's length transaction, and there must be adequate consideration for the release of collateral. Such consideration may include, but is not limited to: ( 1 ) Application of the net proceeds from the sale of collateral to the borrower's debts in order of their lien priority against the sold collateral;
( 2 ) Use of the net proceeds from the sale of collateral to purchase other collateral of equal or greater value for which the lender will obtain as security for the benefit of the guaranteed loan with a lien position equal or superior to the position previously held;
( 3 ) Application of the net proceeds from the sale of collateral to the borrower's business operation in such a manner that a significant improvement to the borrower's debt service ability will be clearly demonstrated. The lender's written request must detail how the borrower's debt service ability will be improved; or
( 4 ) Assurance that the release of collateral is essential for the success of the business, thereby furthering the goals of the program. Such assurance must be supported by written documentation from the lender acceptable to the Agency.
[81 FR 36020, June 3, 2016, as amended at 87 FR 58021, Sept. 23, 2022]
43.103 Types of contract modifications.       Contract modifications are of the following types:                                       (a)                   *Bilateral.* A bilateral modification (supplemental agreement) is a contract modification that is signed by the contractor and the contracting officer. Bilateral modifications are used to-                                                         (1) 								                Make negotiated equitable adjustments resulting from the issuance of a change order;                                                            (2) 								                Definitize letter contracts; and                                                            (3) 								                Reflect other agreements of the parties modifying the terms of contracts.                                                                             (b)                   *Unilateral.* A unilateral modification is a contract modification that is signed only by the contracting officer. Unilateral modifications are used, for example, to-                                                         (1) 								                Make administrative changes;                                                            (2) 								                Issue change orders;                                                            (3) 								                Make changes authorized by clauses other than a changes clause (*e.g.,* Property clause, Options clause, or Suspension of Work clause); and                                                            (4) 								                Issue termination notices.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 43.1 - General
#### § 52.771 Identity.

*Canned red tart pitted cherries* is the product represented as defined in the standard of identity for canned cherries (21 CFR 145.125(a)), issued pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and packed in one of the liquid media specified in § 52.773; and is sealed in a hermetically sealed container and so processed by heat as to prevent spoilage.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Doe, Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 16, 1980, and modified by a further order of the same court dated January 23, 1980, which denied, in part, appellant’s motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum, affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Appellant’s time to comply with the subpoena is extended until 10 days after service upon it of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. Damiani, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.01



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



        We consent to the  incorporation by reference in Registration  Statement
Nos. 333-61291 and 333-40546 on Form S-3, Amendment No. 1 to Registration
Statement Nos. 333-59999, 333-73025, 333-78027, 333-81229 and 333-84119 on Form
S-3, Amendment No. 4 to Registration Statement No. 333-69819 on Form S-3,
Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 on Form S-8 to Registration Statement No.
333-85101 on Form S-4, and Registration Statement No. 333-75741 on Form S-8, of
Adelphia Communications Corporation, of our report dated March 29, 2001,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Adelphia Communications
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2000.




DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 29, 2001
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Age DifferencesAttention ControlCognitive DevelopmentDisability IdentificationElementary Secondary EducationInterpersonal CompetenceLanguage AcquisitionLearning DisabilitiesMotor DevelopmentPreschool EducationStudent Characteristics

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2672 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that oil and gas 

companies will not be eligible for the effective rate reductions enacted 

in 2004 for domestic manufacturers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 27, 2006 

Mr. REID (for Mr. KERRY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

that oil and gas companies will not be eligible for the 

effective rate reductions enacted in 2004 for domestic 

manufacturers. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Restore a Rational 

5 Tax Rate on Petroleum Production Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds that— 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 2672 IS

1 (1) like many other countries, the United States 

2 has long provided export-related benefits under its 

3 tax law, 

4 (2) producers and refiners of oil and natural 

5 gas were specifically denied the benefits of those ex6 port-related tax provisions, 

7 (3) those export-related tax provisions were suc8 cessfully challenged by the European Union as being 

9 inconsistent with our trade agreements, 

10 (4) the Congress responded by repealing the ex11 port-related benefits and enacting a substitute ben12 efit that was an effective rate reduction for United 

13 States manufacturers, 

14 (5) producers and refiners of oil and natural 

15 gas were made eligible for the rate reduction even 

16 though they suffered no detriment from repeal of the 

17 export-related benefits, and 

18 (6) the decision to provide the effective rate re19 duction to producers and refiners of oil and natural 

20 gas has operated as a reverse windfall profits tax, 

21 lowering the tax rate on the windfall profits they are 

22 currently enjoying. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•S 2672 IS

1 SEC. 3. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR INCOME ATTRIB2 UTABLE TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTION OF OIL, 

3 NATURAL GAS, OR PRIMARY PRODUCTS 

4 THEREOF. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (B) of section 

6 199(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 

7 to exceptions) is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of 

8 clause (ii), by striking the period at the end of clause (iii) 

9 and inserting ‘‘, or’’, and by inserting after clause (iii) the 

10 following new clause: 

11 ‘‘(iv) the production, refining, proc12 essing, transportation, or distribution of 

13 oil, natural gas, or any primary product 

14 thereof.’’. 

15 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 199(c)(4) 

16 of such Code is amended— 

17 (1) in subparagraph (A)(i)(III) by striking 

18 ‘‘electricity, natural gas,’’ and inserting ‘‘electricity’’, 

19 and 

20 (2) in subparagraph (B)(ii) by striking ‘‘elec21 tricity, natural gas,’’ and inserting ‘‘electricity’’. 

22 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

23 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

24 December 31, 2005. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS