alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 5:93CR5040LAC

MELVIN MCPHERSON

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on December 4, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE PURSUANT TO TITLE 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on 10/31/08 Doc.# 151

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 22

nd day of

April, 2009, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) As a career criminal the defendant is ineligible for a reduction in sentence.

However, a life sentence was and would be today the mandatory sentence.

Defendant was sentenced to 300 months, well below the guideline range and the

mandatory life sentence, as a result of a 5K1.1 motion filed by the Government.

Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case 300 months is still the

appropriate sentence. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 5:93-cr-05040-LC Document 152 Filed 04/22/09 Page 1 of 1
#### § 4285.47 Limitations.

The amount of funds available for the cooperative agreements under this program is limited to the amount appropriated for the fiscal year.
## Official Gazette

-  Patents
-  Trademarks

# Trademark Official Gazette

The Trademark Official Gazette (TMOG) is published each Tuesday and contains bibliographic information and a representative drawing for each trademark published, along with a list of cancelled and renewed registrations. The TMOG does not contain USPTO Notices. Information about each trademark may also be found in the Trademark search system. 

TMOG

On the publication date or shortly thereafter, the applicant should carefully review the information that appears in the TMOG for accuracy. For applicant corrections or amendments after publication, please file the Post-publication amendment form.

For general information, contact the Trademark Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199 and view the frequently asked questions about the TMOG.

If you experience any trouble when clicking on the direct links to published records in Notices of Publication received via email and/or that appear in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system), you can access the individual record by:
                  - copying the link from the email or Notice of Publication in TSDR and pasting it into the URL address of a, or
                  - visiting the TMOG and selecting the Official Gazette issue date from the list of Issues in the upper left corner then entering the 8-digit serial number in the box labeled "Search By" and clicking on the magnifying glass icon to execute the search.

## PDF version of the TMOG

In addition to the electronic version of the TMOG, the USPTO will continue for a certain period to offer a PDF version, accessed below. Follow these steps to search the PDF version.

 

Archived copies of the Trademark Official Gazette are available at TMOG archives.

Some contents linked to on this page require a plug-in for PDF files.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION — IN ADMIRALTY

IN RE SKANSKA USA CIVIL

SOUTHEAST INC. AND 

SKANSKA USA INC., AS OWNERS Case No. 3:20cv5980-RV/MJF

OF THE BARGE KS 5531, PRAYING

FOR EXONERATION FROM OR

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

_______________________________/

ORDER

On April 29, 2021, claimants’ counsel filed a claim on behalf of the Portofino

Master Homeowners Association, Inc. (doc. 620). I own a condominium in Portofino

and am a member of the HOA, so under the law I must, and do, hereby recuse myself

from further proceedings in this consolidated case. The clerk is directed to reassign

this case to another judge in this district.

DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of May 2021

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:20-cv-05980-MW-MJF Document 944 Filed 05/03/21 Page 1 of 1
Summary of HMEC Named Executive Officer Annualized Salaries



 Exhibit 10.11 
  
 Summary of Horace Mann Educators Corporation 
 Named Executive Officer Annualized Salaries 
 The table below summarizes the annualized salaries of Horace
Mann Educators Corporation's (the "Company") Chief Executive Officer and the other four highest compensated Executive Officers, as defined in the Company's Proxy Statement for the 2009 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (collectively the "Named
Executive Officers"). These salaries may be changed at any time at the discretion of the Compensation Committee and/or Board of Directors of the Company. These salaries do not include short-term and long-term incentive compensation amounts, the
Company's contributions to defined contribution plans and the Company's contributions to other employee benefit programs on behalf of the Named Executive Officers. 
  

			
	 Named Executive Officer
	  	 Annualized Salary

	 Louis G. Lower
II
President and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$640,008.00
	 Peter H.
Heckman
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	  	$436,000.00
	 Thomas C.
Wilkinson
Executive Vice President, Property and Casualty
	  	$300,000.00
	 Paul D.
Andrews
Senior Vice President—Corporate Services
	  	$228,000.00
	 Dwayne D.
Hallman
Senior Vice President, Finance
	  	$263,364.00

 Last revision date: April 30, 2009
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10011 Summary Calendar

LEROY HICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GARY UNELL; DALLAS COUNTY; JOHN VANCE, DA, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:95-CV-2355

- - - - - - - - - - April 1, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Leroy Hicks appeals the district court’s 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) dismissal with prejudice of his pro se , in forma pauperis (IFP), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Hicks contends that against his court appointed attorney, Gary Unell, and John Vance, the district attorney who prosecuted Hicks’ criminal case, conspired toNo. 96-10011 - 2 - maliciously and improperly convict him, that Unell was ineffective, and that the indictment against him was void. The district court properly dismissed with prejudice Hicks’ § 1983 claims which directly attack his underlying conviction because Hicks’ conviction has not been invalidated or called into question and because district attorney Vance is absolutely immune from damages. See Heck v. Humphrey , 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994); Boyd v. Biggers , 31 F.3d 279, 284-85 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, Hicks’ appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Hicks’ motion for failure of process is DENIED as
unnecessary. We caution Hicks that the filing of frivolous appeals could result in sanctions. E.g. Smith V. McCleod , 946 F.2d 417, 418 (5th Cir. 1991); Jackson v. Carpenter , 921 F.2d 68, 69 (5th Cir. 1991). We advise Hicks to review any other appeals pending in this court at this time and recommend that he move to withdraw any appeal that is frivolous. APPEAL DISMISSED. MOTION DENIED.
52.237-9 Waiver of Limitation on Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals.       As prescribed in 37.113-2(b), use the following clause:          Waiver of Limitation on Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals (Dec 2022)                                       (a) Pursuant to                       10 U.S.C. 3744(b)                                          or 41 U.S.C. 4304(b)(1), as applicable, the cost allowability limitations in FAR 31.205-6(g)(6) are waived.                                          (b) 						            This clause may be incorporated into subcontracts issued under this contract, if approved by the Contracting Officer.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.237 [Reserved]
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 5:98cr30-SPM/AK

TOD STEVEN FAUGHT,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant Tod Steven Faught’s 

motion for reconsideration (doc. 319) of the order (doc. 318) denying his Rule 60

motion (doc. 317). Faught claims that he is entitled to relief from his criminal

judgment and sentence. Although he first filed his motion for relief under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 60, on reconsideration he asks the Court to issue a writ

of audita querela.

A motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper avenue of relief for a

federal prisoner to raise constitutional challenges to his conviction and sentence. 

United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir. 2005). The writ of audita

querela cannot be used as a substitute. Id. If Faught’s Rule 60 motion is treated

as a § 2255 motion, it must be denied because Faught filed a prior § 2255 motion

(see docs. 173 and 315) and has not obtained an order from the Eleventh Circuit

Case 5:98-cr-00030-SPM-AK Document 321 Filed 01/22/09 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

 CASE NO. 5:98cr30-SPM/AK

Court of Appeals to authorize a second motion. Id. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s motion for reconsideration

(doc. 319) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 2009.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 5:98-cr-00030-SPM-AK Document 321 Filed 01/22/09 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74711-74712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30253]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-2167-000]


Planet Energy (Pennsylvania) Corp.; Supplemental Notice That 
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 
204 Authorization

November 24, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, 
of Planet Energy (Pennsylvania) Corp.'s application for market-based 
rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability is December 14, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access

[[Page 74712]]

who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#93d5d6c1d0dcfdfffafdf6c0e6e3e3fce1e7d3f5f6e1f0bdf4fce5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="05434057464a6b696c6b60567075756a777145636077662b626a73">[email protected]</span></a>, or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30253 Filed 11-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6581
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WEILY L. BOKEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (6:04-cr-70018-nkm; 7:06-cv-00639-nkm) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 7, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Weily L. Bokel, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Jon Jacobsen, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Weily L. Bokel seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bokel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 5:97cr32LAC

HAYES ROBINSON, JR.

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on January 14, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on 12/31/2007 Doc.# 29

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 16th day of

January, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) The Court will not consider a motion for early termination unless it

certifies the approval of the supervising probation officer. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 5:97-cr-00032-LC Document 30 Filed 01/16/08 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Portman Ridge Finance Corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Report”), I, Jason Roos, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

 

|                      |        |        |                               |
|----------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------|
| Date: March 10, 2022 | By:    |   | /S/ JASON ROOS

         |
|                 |   |   | Jason Roos                    |
|                 |   |   | Chief Financial Officer       |
|                 |   |   | (Principal Financial Officer) |

 

 

----
§ 760.1515 Calculating payments for value loss crops. ( a ) Payments made under this subpart to a participant for a loss on a unit with respect to value loss crops are determined by: ( 1 ) Multiplying the field market value of the crop immediately before the qualifying disaster event by the *2017* WHIP factor or WHIP+ factor specified in § 760.1511(b);
( 2 ) Subtracting the sum of the field market value of the crop immediately after the qualifying disaster event and the value of the crop lost due to ineligible causes of loss from the result from paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
( 3 ) Multiplying the result from paragraph (a)(2) of this section by the participant's share;
( 4 ) Multiplying the result from paragraph (a)(3) of this section by the applicable payment factor;
( 5 ) Subtracting the gross insurance indemnity or NAP payment from the result from paragraph (a)(4) of this section;
( 6 ) Subtracting the secondary use or salvage value of the crop from the result from paragraph (a)(5) of this section; and
( 7 ) Subtracting the amount of any payment for future economic losses received under the Florida Citrus Recovery Block Grant Program.
( b ) In the case of an insurable value loss crop for which crop insurance provides for an adjustment in the guarantee, liability, or indemnity, such as in the case of inventory exceeding peak inventory value, the adjustment will be used in determining the payment under this subpart for the crop.
( c ) In the case of a NAP eligible value loss crop for which NAP provides for an adjustment in the level of assistance, such as in the case of unharvested field grown inventory, the adjustment will be used in determining the payment for the crop.
[83 FR 33801, July 18, 2018, as amended 84 FR 48531, Sept. 13, 2019]
#### In re CALDWELL et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

June 1, 1906.)

In the matter of the judicial settlement of the accounts of Frank R. Caldwell and another, as executors, etc., of Charles W. Gar-lock, deceased.

No opinion. Decree of Surrogate’s Court affirmed, with costs to the respondent, Elizabeth A. Garlock, payable out of the estate. No other costs allowed.
52.247-7 Freight Excluded.

As prescribed in 47.207-3(d)(2), insert a clause substantially as follows in solicitations and contracts

for transportation or for transportation-related services when any commodities or types of shipments

have been identified for exclusion:

Freight Excluded (Apr 1984)

Excluded from the scope of this contract are shipments that can be more advantageously or

economically moved via parcel post or small package carrier; shipments of unusual value, explosives

and other dangerous articles, household goods, commodities in bulk, commodities injurious or

contaminating to other freight; and shipments that the Government may elect to move in

Government vehicles.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.247 [Reserved]
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DEANGELO A. CRANE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-271-RV-MJF

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER GODWIN, 

Defendant.

/

O R D E R

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

and Recommendation dated January 25, 2021 (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff was furnished 

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 reviewed the Report and Recommendation, I have 

determined that it should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7) is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 5:20-cv-00271-RV-MJF Document 8 Filed 02/26/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

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

comply with orders of this court.1

3. The clerk of court shall close this case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of February, 2021.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 “Federal courts possess an inherent power to dismiss a complaint for failure to 

comply with a court order.” Foudy v. Indian River Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 845 F.3d 

1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted); N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (authorizing 

the court to dismiss an action, or any claim within it, “[i]f a party fails to comply 

with an applicable rule or a court order”).

Case 5:20-cv-00271-RV-MJF Document 8 Filed 02/26/21 Page 2 of 2
#### § 51.687 U.S. No. 2 Russet.

The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 2 except that at least 10 percent by count of the fruit shall have more than one-half of their surface, in the aggregate, affected by any type of discoloration. For tolerances see § 51.689.

[85 FR 68426, Oct. 29, 2020]