alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 14

- 1114 Filed April 22, 2015

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs. CHRISTOPHER R. MARTIN , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Marlita A. Greve , Judge.

A defendant appeals the district court’s dismissal of his motion to correct

an illegal sentence and application for appointment of counsel. AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Smith , State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau , Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Mary A. Triick , Assistant Attorney General, Michael Walton , County Attorney, and Jerald Feuerbach , Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ.2

VAITHESWARAN, P.J. Christopher Martin pled guilty to second

- degree theft and second

- d egree robbery. The district court imposed sentence, ordering his Iowa sentences to be served consecutively and also ordering them to run concurrently with a sentence imposed on a separate crime in Illinois. The court later clarified Martin should receive credit for time served in Illinois. Five years later, Martin filed a motion to correct illegal sentence

. He asserted (1) the district court lacked “authority or jurisdiction of the case” because of a statute of limitations violation and (2) he understood his plea agreement would allow “all of his Illinois and Iowa prison time” to run concurrently. Martin simultaneously filed an application for appointment of counsel. T he district court summarily denied the motion s, reasoning the issues raised in the motion to correct illegal sentence were “previously dealt with.” On appeal, Martin asserts the district court “erroneously denied [him] the right to counsel on his motion for correction of an illegal sentence.” He cites the United States and Iowa Constitutions as well as Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.28(1).
T o be an “ illegal ” sentence , “ the sentence must be one not authorized by
statute .” Tindell v. State , 629 N.W.2d 357, 359 (Iowa 2001). Martin’s motion was not truly a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The motion raised a statute of limitations concern and a concern about his understanding of and reliance on the plea agreement. Neither implicates the legality of the sentence. See State v. Wilson , 294 N.W.2d 824, 825 (Iowa 1980) (sug gesting rule on correction of illegal sentences “is directed to excision of sentences insofar as they were beyond the3

jurisdiction of the court and therefore void”). Because the issues Martin raised could not be described as a challenge to the legality of the sentence, we need not address the question of whether a right to counsel attaches to a motion to correct an illegal sentence. See State v. Trueblood , No. 13

- 0687, 2014 WL 636167, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2014). We affirm the district court’s summary dismissal of Martin’s motion to correct illegal sentence

. AFFIRMED.
52.209-2 Prohibition on Contracting with Inverted Domestic Corporations-Representation.       As prescribed in 9.108-5(a), insert the following provision:          Prohibition on Contracting with Inverted Domestic Corporations-Representation (Nov 2015)                                       (a)                   *Definitions*. "Inverted domestic corporation" and "subsidiary" have the meaning given in the clause of this contract entitled Prohibition on Contracting with Inverted Domestic Corporations (52.209-10).                                          (b) 						            Government agencies are not permitted to use appropriated (or otherwise made available) funds for contracts with either an inverted domestic corporation, or a subsidiary of an inverted domestic corporation, unless the exception at 9.108-2(b) applies or the requirement is waived in accordance with the procedures at 9.108-4.                                          (c)                   *Representation*. The Offeror represents that-                                                         (1) 								                It □ is, □ is not an inverted domestic corporation; and                                                            (2) 								                It □ is, □ is not a subsidiary of an inverted domestic corporation.                                                                    (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 52.209 [Reserved]
156 So.2d 605

#### Mrs. Florine M. GOULD v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY.

No. 46912.

Oct. 10, 1963.

In re: Mrs. Florine M. Gould applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapides. 154 So.2d 804.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.

SANDERS, J., is of the opinion that a writ should be granted.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 5:96-CV-002-SPM/AK

EDWARD FLOYD,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the magistrate judge's report

and recommendation (doc. 187) dated May 4, 2005. The parties have been

furnished a copy and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections. 

Defendant filed an objection (doc. 188) on May 16, 2005. 

Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I have made

a de novo determination of those portions to which an objection has been made. 

Defendant states in his objection that he is contesting only the enhancements

applied to his sentence, not the conviction itself. Nevertheless, Defendant is not

entitled to relief under United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005) because the

Eleventh Circuit has specifically held Booker to be inapplicable to cases on

collateral review. Varela v. United States, 400 F.3d 864, 868 (11th Cir. 2005). 

Case 5:96-cr-00002-SPM-AK Document 189 Filed 05/23/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

As Defendant was sentenced on August 10, 1999, and the record reflects that he

took no appeal, the judgment and sentence are now final, and Defendant is not

entitled to relief under Booker. 

 Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 187) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Defendant’s §2255 post-conviction motion (doc. 186) is hereby

denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this twenty-third day of May, 2005.

Case 5:96-cr-00002-SPM-AK Document 189 Filed 05/23/05 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Lewis S. Marks, an Attorney.

Motion granted only insofar as to extend respondent’s time to notify his clients to within 30 days of the date of the order entered herein and the motion is otherwise denied. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Fein, Sullivan, Silverman and Bloom, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1  Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section1350  I, Paul Garcia, President, Secretary and Treasurer of
Anasazi Capital Corp. (the Corporation), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, to my knowledge that:  1.  the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2008 (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 Corporation.  Date:  September 1, 2009  By:
        /s/ Paul Garcia
 Paul Garcia President, Secretary and Treasurer (Principal Accounting Officer)
#### § 61.1 Words in singular form.

Words used in the regulations in this subpart in the singular form shall be deemed to import the plural, and vice-versa, as the case may demand.
43.107 Contract clause.

The contracting officer may insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 52.243-7,

Notification of Changes, in solicitations and contracts. The clause is available for use primarily in

negotiated research and development or supply contracts for the acquisition of major weapon

systems or principal subsystems. If the contract amount is expected to be less than $1,000,000, the

clause shall not be used, unless the contracting officer anticipates that situations will arise that may

result in a contractor alleging that the Government has effected changes other than those identified

as such in writing and signed by the contracting officer.

Parent topic: Subpart 43.1 - General
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Citizenship EducationCivicsDemocracyLanguage ArtsLaw Related EducationSecondary EducationSocial StudiesWriting Across the CurriculumWriting Evaluation

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
~D s74

~ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX

~ 75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

‘~q~ PRO~’

October 17, 2014

Sweetwater Chapter, Navajo Nation Reservation

P.O. Box 105

TeecNosPos, AZ 86514

ATTN: Sarah Lee

Subject: Public documents at the Sweetwater Chapter for public inspection

Dear Ms. Lee:

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency sent you a package containing a number of documents

regarding the McEImo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility on the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation

near the city of Aneth, San Juan County, Utah. Two of these documents contained an error, and need

to be replaced. Please replace the following documents in the package previously sent to you with

the enclosed documents:

1. PUBLIC INFORMATION SHEET

2. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY IMPACT REPORT & FACT SHEET

Your assistance with this matter is greatly appreciated. Feel free to contact me at (415) 947-4156 or

kelly.shtheerah(~epa.gov if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Shaheerah Kelly, Environmental Engineer

Permits Office

Air Division

Enclosures
#### § 58.227 Sampling device.

If automatic sampling devices are used, they shall be constructed in such a manner as to prevent contamination of the product, and all parts must be readily accessible for cleaning. The type of sampler and the sampling procedure shall be as approved by the Administrator.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2529 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Oxadiazon. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 5, 2006 

Mr. TALENT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Oxadiazon. 

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

3 SECTION 1. OXADIAZON. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.10.73 5-tert-butyl-3-(2,4-dichloro5-isopropoxyphenyl)–1,3,4- 

oxadiazol-2(3H)-one 

(Oxadiazon) (CAS No. 

19666–30–9) (provided for 

in subheading 2934.99.11) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


HMoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 2529 IS 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


HMoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
San Joaquin Valley Public Records Requests

Air Pollution Control District Phone (559) 230-6000

1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue, Fresno, CA 93726-0244 Fax (559) 230-6061

(559) 230-6000 www.Valleyair.org

Office Use Only

PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FORM

ATTENTION REQUESTOR: To expedite your request for District records, please fill out this form completely. Identify specifically

the type of records you are requesting. Please limit your request to one facility or one site address for each request form filed, and three

requests items per form. Additional forms or pages can be used if requesting information for more than one facility or for records not

identified on this form. Requests should reasonably describe identifiable records prepared, owned, used, or retained by the District.

Staff is available to assist you in identifying those records in the District's possession. The District is not required by law to create a new

record or list from an existing record. By submission of this form I hereby agree to reimburse the SJVUAPCD for the direct cost of duplicating

the requested records in accordance with Gov. Code Sec. 6253(b).

REQUESTOR INFORMATION

NAME: DATE:

COMPANY:

MAILING ADDRESS:

CITY: STATE: ZIP CODE:

PHONE # FAX # E-MAIL:

DOCUMENTS REQUESTED (3 Items per form )

Permit Application(s) Site Inspection Report(s) All Records/General File Review

Permit(s) to Operate (PTO) Source Test Report(s) Toxic Sources within 1/4 mi School Review

Authorities to Construct (ATC) Air Monitoring Data Asbestos Notification(s)/Record(s)

Engineering Evaluation(s) Complaints AB2588 “Hot Spots” Information

Emissions Inventory Statement(s) Notice(s) of Violation (NOV) Other (Describe below or on additional pages):

Health Risk Assessment(s) Notice(s) to Comply (NTC)

DATE OF DOCUMENTS REQUESTED: From: To:

REQUESTED FACILITY INFORMATION (If Applicable )

FACILITY NAME: FACILITY I.D. NO. (if known)

FACILITY ADDRESS:

CITY: STATE: ZIP CODE:

METHOD OF DELIVERY (Check all that apply)

Pick Up FAX (Maximum 30 Pages) Email (Maximum 5 MB)

U.S. Mail CD/DVD Other _________________________________________

Inspection of records only, no copies required (District will contact you to setup an appointment for inspection)

 I request that the SJVUAPCD contact me prior to completing the requested records if the cost exceeds $___________

CONTROL NUMBER

PRR\07-08\PRR Form - Version #1 (9-17-07).xls
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ISHMAEL WHITAKER,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5642/LAC/EMT

DANGERFIELD, et al., 

Defendants.

______________________/

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on October

14, 2020 (ECF No. 5). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title

28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined it

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

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

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

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to

comply with an order of the court.

Case No.: 3:20cv5642/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-05642-LC-EMT Document 6 Filed 11/17/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. The clerk of court is directed to close this file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th

 day of November, 2020.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:20cv5642/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-05642-LC-EMT Document 6 Filed 11/17/20 Page 2 of 2
#### § 56.53 Fees or charges for grading service performed under cooperative agreement.

Fees or charges to be made to an applicant for grading service which differ from those listed in §§ 56.45 through 56.54 shall be provided for by a cooperative agreement.

[36 FR 7894, Apr. 28, 1971. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981]
# 47.207-10 Discrepancies incident to shipments.

Discrepancies incident to *shipment* include overage, shortage, loss, damage, and other discrepancies between the quantity and/or condition of *supplies* received from commercial *carrier* and the quantity and/or condition of these *supplies* as shown on the covering *bill of lading* or other transportation document. Regulations and procedures for reporting and adjusting discrepancies in Government *shipments* are in 41 CFR parts 102-117 and 118. (For the Department of Defense (DoD), see DoD 4500.9-R, Defense Transportation Regulation, Part II, Chapter 210).

**Parent topic:**47.207 Solicitation provisions, contract clauses, and special requirements.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          14,611
<SECURITIES>                                    16,713
<RECEIVABLES>                                  146,912
<ALLOWANCES>                                    53,362
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               240,175
<PP&E>                                         442,894
<DEPRECIATION>                                  64,647
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 874,422
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          133,374
<BONDS>                                        490,202
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       213,465
<OTHER-SE>                                    (31,419)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   874,422
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               361,194
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  165,272
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               155,676
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                24,003
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,411
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (82,358)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (32,846)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (49,512)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (34,543)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (4,557)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (88,612)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.61)
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

MICHAEL ANDERSON,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 5:03-cv-00257-MP-EMT

CHARLIE CRIST,

AL SOLOMAN,

Respondents.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 18, Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Timothy, recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1, be denied. 

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report and Recommendation on Tuesday, May 24, 2005. The

parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded

an opportunity to file objections. Petitioner has filed objections, Doc. 21. Pursuant to Title 28,

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I have made a de novo review of those portions to which

an objection has been made. Having considered the Report and Recommendation and all

objections thereto timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be

adopted.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and

INCORPORATED by reference in this order.

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1, is DENIED.

Case 5:03-cv-00257-MP-EMT Document 23 Filed 08/09/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 5:03-cv-00257-MP-EMT

3. The clerk is directed to close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of August, 2005.

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-00257-MP-EMT Document 23 Filed 08/09/05 Page 2 of 2
4V?. fteconj en pa^es

kt

ft X.

-\ti

TT

?4

cvUaer- oev

it

■. ro

CJ
If' C"

.- TH

in

(?•

§:

^";

$£

_j

Ml

■_

Ik

03

ic

-1

10

in

:-:
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

SHELDON LEE HUTCHINS,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5952/MCR/ZCB

DAVID MICHAEL ROWELL, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________/

ORDER

The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on March 15, 

2024. (Doc. 191). The Court furnished the parties a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all 

timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 

objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 191) is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 3:20-cv-05952-MCR-ZCB Document 192 Filed 03/30/24 Page 1 of 2
2

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. 185) is

DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of March, 2024.

M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05952-MCR-ZCB Document 192 Filed 03/30/24 Page 2 of 2
# 9.308 Contract clauses.

- 9.308-1 Testing performed by the contractor. 
- 9.308-2 Testing performed by the Government. 

**Parent topic:**Subpart 9.3 - First Article Testing and Approval
§ 623.12 Payments to landowners by NRCS. ( a ) NRCS will share the cost with landowners of rehabilitating the enrolled land in the EWRP as provided in the WRPO. The amount of the cost-share assistance shall be specified in the contract. Eligible costs for such cost-share assistance by NRCS shall only include those costs which NRCS determines are appropriate and shall be subject to the following restrictions: ( 1 ) The State Conservationist will establish cost-share rates of between 75 to 100 percent of the historical cost of establishing or installing the practices specified in the WRPO; or pay the average cost of establishing the practices specified in the WRPO, based on the historical cost of establishing the practices in the State;
( 2 ) Cost-share payments may be made only upon a determination that an approved practice or an identifiable unit of the practice has been completed in compliance with NRCS approved standards and specifications; and
( 3 ) Cost-share payments may not be made for the maintenance of the practice except as specifically permitted in writing by the State Conservationist.
( b ) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(3) of this section, cost share payments may be authorized for the replacement or restoration of practices for which cost share assistance has been previously allowed under the EWRP, but only if: ( 1 ) Replacement or restoration of the practice is needed to meet the objectives for which the easement was established; and
( 2 ) The failure of the original practice was due to reasons beyond the control of the participant.
( c ) ( 1 ) NRCS shall pay the amount agreed upon by NRCS and the landowner for the purchase of the easement in a lump-sum amount after the easement is perfected in compliance with State law, except in the case of paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
( 2 ) For all easements, NRCS shall pay no more than 75 percent of the total easement price pending completion of the practices to restore the wetlands as provided under the WRPO. The remaining amount shall be paid when NRCS determines the restoration is complete.
( d ) After an easement is perfected, NRCS will reimburse landowners for fair and reasonable expenses incurred for title searches, filing expenses, and related costs, as determined by NRCS.