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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO.: 4:96cr36/MMP

EDDIE LEE GORDON

 /

O R D E R

This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion for sentence reduction

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). (Doc. 209). The government has responded in

opposition, raising an issue of retroactivity. (Doc. 210). Upon consideration, the court finds

it appropriate to appoint counsel and permit defendant an opportunity to argue his

entitlement to a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The court has

determined that defendant is qualified for appointment of counsel pursuant to the

provisions of the Criminal Justice Act. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1

1. The Federal Public Defender, 111 North Adams Street, Suite 100,

Tallahassee, Florida 32301, telephone number (850) 521-3851, is appointed to represent

this defendant and serve as counsel of record for the purposes of resentencing in the

above-styled cause. The defendant is presently in custody. If a Criminal Justice Act (CJA)

panel attorney is selected by the Federal Public Defender as defendant’s attorney, this

order authorizes payment of the CJA attorney for work on behalf of defendant.

2. Followingappearance by appointed counsel, the court will allow forty-five (45)

days within which to file a motion on behalf of defendant. If no motion is filed within the

By initial Order dated June 18, 1996, defendant was determined qualified for appointment of

1

counsel. Defendant has remained in custody since that date and the court sees to no basis or reason to alter

his CJA qualification status.

Case 4:96-cr-00036-RH-CAS Document 211 Filed 11/08/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

prescribed time period, the court will enter an order denying sentence reduction pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

DONE and ORDERED 8th day of November, 2011.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 4:96cr36/MMP

Case 4:96-cr-00036-RH-CAS Document 211 Filed 11/08/11 Page 2 of 2
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT 

- 1 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

TIMOTHY BOISVERT, 

Plaintiff, 

– vs – 

GC SERVICES, LP, 

Defendant.

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 3:20-cv-05612-RV-HTC 

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiff, TIMOTHY BOISVERT (“Plaintiff”), and

Defendant, GC SERVICES, LP (“Defendant”), have reached settlement in the above-captioned 

action. Plaintiff anticipates filing a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal within forty-five (45) days once 

settlement documents are executed. Pending the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Plaintiff 

respectfully requests that all pending deadlines be vacated. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

Dated: August 27, 2020 By: /s/ Jason S. Weiss 

 Jason S. Weiss 

 Florida Bar #356890 

 WEISS LAW GROUP, P.A. 

 5531 N. University Drive, Suite 103 

 Coral Springs, FL 33067 

 Tel: (954) 573-2800 

 Fax: (954) 573-2798 

 E: Jason@jswlawyer.com 

 

 

Case 3:20-cv-05612-RV-HTC Document 11 Filed 08/27/20 Page 1 of 2
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT 

- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on August 27, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOTICE 

OF SETTLEMENT was filed using the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will notify all attorneys 

of record. 

By: /s/ Jason S. Weiss 

 Jason S. Weiss 

 Florida Bar #356890 

 

Case 3:20-cv-05612-RV-HTC Document 11 Filed 08/27/20 Page 2 of 2
# 47.305-17 Returnable cylinders.

The *contracting officer**shall* insert the clause at 52.247-66, Returnable Cylinders, in a *solicitation* and contract whenever the contract involves the purchase of gas in contractor-furnished returnable cylinders and the contractor retains title to the cylinders.

**Parent topic:**47.305 Solicitation provisions, contract clauses, and transportation factors.
# 32.009           Providing accelerated payments to small business contractors and to prime contractors that subcontract with a small business concern.       

- 32.009-1 General. 
- 32.009-2 Contract clause. 

**Parent topic:**Part 32 - Contract Financing
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74014-74019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30044]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 10-49]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a copy of a letter to the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 10-49 with 
attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of 
Technology.

    Dated: November 23, 2010.
Morgan F. Park,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P

[[Page 74015]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30NO10.234


[[Page 74016]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30NO10.235


[[Page 74017]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30NO10.236


[[Page 74018]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30NO10.237


[[Page 74019]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30NO10.238

[FR Doc. 2010-30044 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
Case 4:99-cr-00053-RV   Document 37   Filed 04/21/06   Page 1 of 1
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R ECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: Alma Salman v. KIPP, INC.

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00886

- CV

Trial court case number: 2016

- 44671

Trial court: 334th District Court of Harris County

It is ordered that Appellee’s Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Dismiss Appeal as

Untimely is DENIED

.

Judge’s signature:

_____

/s/ Sarah B. Landau

_____ Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and J ustices Kelly and Landau

Date: ____ February 4, 2020

____
#### § 51.629 Application of tolerances.

Individual samples are subject to the following limitations, unless otherwise specified in § 51.628. Individual samples shall have not more than one and one-half times a specified tolerance of 10 percent or more, and not more than double a specified tolerance of less than 10 percent: *Provided,* That at least one decayed fruit may be permitted in any sample: *And provided further,* That the averages for the entire lot are within the tolerances specified for the grade.

[85 FR 68424, Oct. 29, 2020]
EXHIBIT 32.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 	
       In connection with the quarterlyreport of The Furia Organization, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for thequarter ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on December ___, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Michael Alexander, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, asadopted 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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 

/s/ Michael Alexander   Michael AlexanderChiefExecutive Officer December 31, 2004
A signed original of this certification has been providedto the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.****
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 4:02-CR-45-SPM-1

THOMAS C. JONES, III,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TERMINATE SUPERVISED RELEASE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion for Early

Termination of Supervised Release (doc. 395). As grounds, Defendant states

that he has maintained work, been involved in his children’s lives, and not

violated his probation. 

If “warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of

justice” and after an analysis of the factors considered in 18 United States Code

Section 3553(a), this Court may order early termination of supervised release. 18

U.S.C. § 3583(e). United States v. Paterno, 99-cr-037, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

9334, at *2 (D. N.J. 2002) (citing United States v. Hardesty, 2002 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 7013, No 95-20031, at *1 (D. Kan. 2002)); United States v. Medina, 17 F.

Supp. 2d 245, 247 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); United States v. Darshelabl, 2006 U.S. Dist.

Case 4:02-cr-00045-SPM Document 401 Filed 06/01/11 Page 1 of 3
LEXIS 21631 (W.D. Tenn. 2006). However, “early termination is not warranted

as a matter of course; on the contrary, it is only occasionally justified due to

changed circumstances of a defendant, such as exceptionally good behavior.” 

United States v. Sheckley, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 32024, *5 (2d Cir. 1997)

(internal quotations omitted). 

While the Defendant’s good conduct while on supervised release is

laudable, Defendant has not cited facts that demonstrate extraordinary

circumstances sufficient to warrant early termination of his supervised release.

”Full compliance, after all, is merely what is expected of all people serving terms

of supervised release.” Karacsonyi v. United States, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS

15107 (2d Cir. 1998). The Defendant has yet to complete half of the five year

term of supervised release originally imposed. Additionally, the Defendant has

already received the benefit of a 5K1 motion and Rule 35 motion filed by the

Government on his behalf, resulting in a reduced sentence of imprisonment.

Accordingly, having considered all of the factors in 18 United States Code

Section 3553(a), it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion for Early Termination of

Supervised Release (doc. 395) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this first day of June, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

2

Case 4:02-cr-00045-SPM Document 401 Filed 06/01/11 Page 2 of 3
3

Case 4:02-cr-00045-SPM Document 401 Filed 06/01/11 Page 3 of 3
#### § 51.3062 Well colored.

*Well colored* means that the avocado has the color characteristic of the variety.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHARLES MCBRIDE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20-cv-256-AW-GRJ

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I have considered the magistrate judge’s February 4, 2021 Report and 

Recommendation, ECF No. 22, to which there have been no objections. I agree with 

the magistrate judge’s conclusion, and I adopt the report and recommendation and 

incorporate it into this order. The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “This case is 

dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).” The clerk will then close 

the file.

SO ORDERED on March 5, 2021. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00256-AW-GRJ Document 23 Filed 03/05/21 Page 1 of 1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER JON PERGROSSI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20cv188-MW/GRJ

FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION,

Defendant.

_________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Order to Show Cause and Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 4, and has also 

reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation.1 ECF 

No. 6.

Plaintiff filed 33 cases over a four-day period, from August 17 through August 

20, 2020. These cases were assigned to three U. S. District Judges in the Northern 

District of Florida. The cases are frivolous. Understandably, the Magistrate Judge 

1 Plaintiff filed a document in Case No. 1:20cv181-MW/GRJ, ECF No. 6, which this Court has 

construed as an omnibus response to the Order to Show Cause and as objections to the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones, ECF No. 4.

Case 1:20-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/23/20 Page 1 of 2
2

found this extraordinary volume of frivolous cases merits the imposition of 

restrictions on future filings in order to preserve scarce judicial resources and protect 

the efficient administration of justice. While a close call, this Court will not restrict 

future filings unless Plaintiff continues to abuse the process. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted in part, over 

Plaintiff’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, 

“This case is DISMISSED without leave to amend as frivolous and/or for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

No restrictions are imposed on future filings unless Plaintiff continues to abuse the 

judicial process.” The Clerk shall also close the file. 

SO ORDERED on September 23, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00188-MW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/23/20 Page 2 of 2
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Humphreys, Huff and Senior Judge Clements

LANTZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND 

 CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY

MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1059-11-3 PER CURIAM

SEPTEMBER 27, 2011

MICHAEL ADAMS

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

(Robert M. Himmel; Lucas & Kite, PLC, on brief), for appellants.

(Michael L. Ritchie; Ritchie Law Firm, P.L.C., on brief), for 

appellee.

Lantz Construction Company and its insurer, Cincinnati Insurance Company, appeal a 

decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission granting temporary total disability benefits 

to Michael Adams. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that 

this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the majority of the

commission in its final opinion. See Adams v. Lantz Constr. Co., VWC File No. JCN 

VA000-0013-5200 (Apr. 27, 2011). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

 * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:96-cr-00020-MP-AK

JOHN CALVIN EVERETT,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

Mr. Everett filed a "Motion for Relief from a Void Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b)(6) 'The Catch-All-Clause.'" The motion seeks to reassert the claims that were raised and

rejected in the orders at docs. 463, 456, 453, 451, 441, 432, 421, 418, and 413. Accordingly, the

motion is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of July, 2007

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:96-cr-00020-MW-GRJ Document 465 Filed 07/13/07 Page 1 of 1
(April 24, 1969)

#### Frank Grathwohl et al., Appellants, v. Hiway Wonderland, Inc. et al., Respondents.

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment of the Supreme Court entered March 31, 1965 in Greene County, upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury. The plaintiffs are upper riparian owners whose property adjoins that of the defendants, lower riparian owners. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief against the defendants so as to prevent the flooding of their land by a dam constructed by the defendants. The court found “that the weight of the evidence adduced sustains plaintiffs’ position that defendants’ dam has and still does flood plaintiffs’ land at certain times of the year ” and *“*that the evidence adduced in respect to the flooding of plaintiffs’ land by reason of the dam on defendants’ property justifies the granting of an injunction enjoining defendants from closing the four port holes in the dam at any time or raising the height of the dam as it now exists in any manner.” The court further found that *“*Since no proof of valuation of plaintiffs’ property before and after flooding, or proof of rental value of the 2.6 acres during plaintiffs’ ownership or cost of restoring premises to prior condition was offered, no finding can be made by this court in respect to damages.” Upon this appeal the plaintiffs seek further relief to the extent of enjoining the defendants from maintaining the dam higher than the stream bed where the stream leaves plaintiffs’ property. The present record, in its entirety, sustains the factual findings as enumerated albeit the defendants *590continue to commit a technical trespass on the property "of the plaintiffs. Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, by adding the proviso that the plaintiffs may apply for additional relief at any time at the foot of the judgment, upon showing substantial injury from any cause to them hereafter occurring; or at their election the plaintiffs may bring such separate action for other relief as they may be advised on account of any injury to their property hereafter occurring; and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, J.
#### §§ 5001.142-5001.200 [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                             257
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  563,490
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,418
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           7,642
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,385
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 560,042
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        203,350
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     156,285
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   560,042
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,125
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,921
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,309
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,895
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,695
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,695
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RACHEL HANH RODKE,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00320-CR

Appeal from the

County Criminal Court No. 4

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20150C06433)

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed in this office on January 27, 2017, and upon further review, 

it appears that the Trial Court Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal does not indicate 

whether or not the defendant has the right to appeal.

Therefore, the Court ORDERS that the Honorable Jesus Herrera, Judge for County 

Criminal Court No. 4 of El Paso County, Texas, enter an amended Trial Court Certification of 

Defendant’s Right of Appeal. The amended Trial Court Certification of Defendant’s Right of 

Appeal shall be filed with the County Clerk of El Paso County, Texas, and the County Clerk 

shall prepare a supplemental clerk’s record which will include the amended Trial Court 

Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal and file it with this Court on or before February 9, 

2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of January, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, Burton B. Staniar



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Amendment to 
 Amended and Restated Employment Agreement 
 This Amendment (the “2009 Amendment”) is entered into and effective as of this 4th day of May, 2009 by and between Knoll, Inc. (the “Company”) and
Burton B. Staniar (“Executive”) as follows: 
 WHEREAS, Executive and the Company desire to amend that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of
January 1, 2006, by and between Executive and the Company, which amended and restated that certain Employment Agreement between Executive and the Company, dated as of February 29, 1996 (the “Employment Agreement”). 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in exchange for consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	The last sentence of Section 1.01 is deleted and the following is inserted in lieu thereof: “Executive agrees to devote a reasonable portion of his business time and
efforts to promote the interests of the Company as reasonably requested by the Company.” 

  

	 	2.	Section 3.01(a) is amended to change the “Base Salary” from $200,000 to $115,000. 

  

	 	3.	The second sentence of Section 4.01 is deleted in its entirety. 

  

	 	 4.
	 Section 6.03 is amended to change the notice address in the case of the Company to: Knoll, Inc, 76 Ninth Avenue, 11
th Floor, New York, NY 10011, Attention: Chief Executive Officer, with a copy to Knoll, Inc., 1235 Water Street, East Greenville, PA 18041,
Attention: Office of General Counsel, Fax: (215) 679-1013. 


  

	 	5.	The effective date of this 2009 Amendment is May 4, 2009. 

  

	 	6.	Except as specifically set forth in this 2009 Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged. 

  

	 	7.	This 2009 Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original but all of which together will constitute one and the same
instrument. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has duly executed this 2009 Amendment as of the date first above written.

  

							
		 		 	KNOLL, INC.
				
	 /s/ Burton B. Staniar
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Barry L. McCabe

	Burton B. Staniar	 		 	Name:	 	Barry L. McCabe
		 		 	Its:	 	EVP and Chief Financial Officer