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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 5:99-CR-003-SPM

RUBY JOHNSON,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE TERM OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the “Motion to Reduce Term

of Probation” (doc. 87) filed June 2, 2006 and the response from the Government

(doc. 89) filed July 5, 2006. Defendant requests that her 10-year term of

supervised release be reduced commensurate with the 120-month reduction in

her sentence she received pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 35

(doc. 86).

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), a defendant may request that the Court

modify his or her supervised release “at any time after the expiration of one year

of supervised release . . . .” As Defendant is still serving the incarcerative portion

Case 5:99-cr-00003-SPM Document 90 Filed 08/10/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

of her sentence, she is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion is hereby denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this tenth day of August, 2006.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 5:99-cr-00003-SPM Document 90 Filed 08/10/06 Page 2 of 2
CHAPTER 11. CONSUMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

11.1 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 11-1

11 -iCHAPTER 11. CONSUMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

11.1 METHODOLOGY

The consumer subgroup analysis evaluates impacts on any identifiable groups or consumers who may be disproportionately affected by any national energy conservation standard. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will conduct this analysis as one of the analyses for the notice of proposed rulemaking. DOE will accomplish this, in part, by analyzing the LCC and payback periods (PBPs) for those consumers that fall into any identifiable groups. DOE plans to evaluate variations in regional energy prices and variations in energy use that might affect the net present value of a standard to consumer subpopulations. To the extent possible, DOE will obtain estimates of each input parameter’s variability and will consider this variability in its calculation of consumer impacts.

DOE will determine the impact on consumer subgroups using the LCC Spreadsheet Model, which allows for different data inputs. The standard LCC analysis (described in chapter 8 of this preliminary technical support document (TSD)) focuses on the households that use residential dehumidifi ers

. DOE can use the LCC Spreadsheet Model to analyze the LCC for any subgroup by sampling only that subgroup. (Chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD exp lains in detail the inputs to the model used in determining LCC and PBPs.) In the case of residential dehumidifi ers , possible subgroups DOE may choose to consider are: (1) low

- income households, and (2) senior citizens.

DOE will be especially sensitive to increases in the purchase price of the product due to amended standards, to avoid negative impacts on identifiable population groups that may not be able to afford significant increases in product price.

11 -1
16.206-3 Limitations.       This contract type shall not be used unless-                                       (a)                    						             The contract is for research and development and the estimated cost is the simplified acquisition threshold or less;                                          (b)                    						             The contractor’s accounting system is adequate for price redetermination;                                          (c)                    						             There is reasonable assurance that the price redetermination will take place promptly at the specified time; and                                          (d)                    						             The head of the contracting activity (or a higher-level official, if required by agency procedures) approves its use in writing.    **Parent topic:** 16.206 Fixed-ceiling-price contracts with retroactive price redetermination.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-07-13T15:31:21-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
#### Alan Lippe, Appellant, v Larry Finley, Respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 30, 1979, and a subsumed order entered October 25, 1979, which granted defendant’s motion to confirm the Referee’s report, dismissed the complaint and granted summary judgment in defendant’s favor, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and summary judgment is denied. In this action to recover on a 1969 promissory note plaintiff swears that in 1973 defendant made a partial payment on account of the note and in acknowledgment thereof, thus removing the bar of the six-year Statute of Limitations. Defendant categorically denies making any such payment or promise. Rather than impel Special Term to direct a reference the presence of this fact issue required it to deny defendant’s motion forthwith. *(Southern Assoc, v United Brands Co.,*67 AD2d 199; *Marshall, Bratter, Greene, Allison & Tucker v Mechner,*53 AD2d 537.) Concur—Birns, J. P., Sandler, Ross, Markewich and Yesawich, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-10837

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUVENCIO MAGANA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:09-CR-236-2

Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Juvencio Magana has moved for leave

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Magana has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow

consideration at this time of Magana’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel;

such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has

not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 22, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-10837 Document: 00512250456 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/22/2013
No. 12-10837

the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d

1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We

have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected

therein, as well as Magana’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment

that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly,

the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 12-10837 Document: 00512250456 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/22/2013
#### Lyman H. Granger, Appellant, *v.*Henry H. Craig et al., Respondents.

(Argued June 3,1884;

decided June 7, 1884.)

*John M. Dunning*for appellant.

*Wm. K. Gogswell*for respondents.

Agree to affirm on the opinion in the former appeal in this case. (86 N. T. 494.)

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
§ 58.137 Excluded milk. A plant shall not accept milk from a producer if: ( a ) The milk has been in a probational (No. 3) sediment content classification for more than 10 calendar days (§ 58.134);
( b ) Three of the last five milk samples have exceeded the maximum bacterial estimate of 500,000 per ml. (§ 58.135 (c)(3)).
( c ) Three of the last five milk samples have exceeded the maximum somatic cell count level of 750,000 per ml. (1,000,000 per ml. for goat milk) (§ 58.133 (b)(6)); or
( d ) The producer's milk shipments to either the Grade A or the manufacturing grade milk market currently are not permitted due to a positive drug residue test (§ 58.133(c)(4)).
[58 FR 26913, May 6, 1993, as amended at 67 FR 48975, July 29, 2002]
Exhibit 99.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS



I, Paul E. Martin, the Principal Financial Officer of Enstar Income Program II-1, L.P. (the "Partnership") in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the Partnership's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission:

- fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

/s/  Paul E. MartinPaul E. MartinChief Financial OfficerNovember 13, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             294
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       95
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    51
<PP&E>                                          10,346
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,694
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,020
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              215
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,272
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,020
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   429
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 150
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (15)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

        

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JOHN J. CAWTHON, JR.,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No.: 3:03cv565/RV/EMT

JAMES CROSBY,

Respondent.

____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation dated October 24, 2005. Petitioner has been furnished a copy of the report and

recommendation and has been 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 all objections thereto timely filed,

I have determined that the report and recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

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.

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of November, 2005.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

UNITED STATES SENIOR JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-00565-RV-EMT Document 36 Filed 11/15/05 Page 1 of 1
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 

12, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-20-00088-CV

LILLIE SCHECHTER, JENNIFER HALVORSEN, GIORDAUN BETTY, 

AND THE HARRIS COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY, Appellants

V.

GEORGE POWELL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 234th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-88409

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from an order signed January 8, 2020. On March 2, 2020, 

appellants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The 

motion is granted. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Spain.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 75484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30343]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, December 13, 2010, 8 a.m. to 
December 13, 2010, 5 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal 
Register on November 17, 2010, 75 FR 70272-70273.
    The meeting will be held December 17, 2010. The meeting time and 
location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: November 29, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-30343 Filed 12-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### ELIAS v. EISENBERG.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 15, 1906.)

Action by Joseph Elms against Joseph Eisenberg.

No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs. Order filed.
**EXHIBIT 33.4**

**REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA**

Perpetual Trustees Consolidated Limited (the “**Asserting Party**”) is responsible for assessing compliance as of September 30, 2006 and for the period from September 21, 2006 (the date of issuance of the Crusade Global Trust No. 2 of 2006 transaction subject to the requirements of Regulation AB) through September 30, 2006 (the “**Reporting Period**”) with the servicing criteria set forth in Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the “**CFR**”), except for criteria 229.1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(3)(i), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i), 1122(d)(4)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(v), 1122(d)(4)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(vii),1122(d)(4)(viii), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii), 1122(d)(4)(xiv) and 1122(d)(4)(xv) in the CFR, which the Asserting Party has concluded are not applicable to the servicing activities it performs with respect to the asset-backed securities transactions covered by this report (the “**Applicable Servicing Criteria**”).  The transactions covered by this report include asset-backed securities transactions for which the Asserting Party served as issuer trustee that are backed by the same asset type backing the class of asset-backed securities of the Crusade Global Trust No. 2 of 2006 (including the Crusade Global Trust No. 2 of 2006 asset-backed securities transaction), that were completed on or after January 1, 2006 by Crusade Management Limited as depositor and that were registered with the SEC pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the “**Platform**”).  The sole asset-backed transaction that constituted the Platform is the Crusade Global Trust No.2 of 2006.

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of September 30, 2006 and for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria with respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

KPMG, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of September 30, 2006 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assessment.

Perpetual Trustees Consolidated Limited

Date:  15 December 2006 

| By:                     /s/ Chris Green                  |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Chris Green

Head of Debt Markets

Perpetual Trustees Consolidated Limited
#### § 6.5 Hearings under section 22.

The Administrator is authorized to provide for such public hearings as he deems necessary to discharge the responsibility for action under section 22 vested in him by §§ 6.2 and 6.4(a). In view of the need, however, for prompt action on requests for action under section 22, public hearings shall be held in connection with investigations conducted under § 6.4(a) only when the Administrator determines that a public hearing is necessary to obtain supplementary information not otherwise available. Any public hearing which is held shall be conducted by representatives designated for the purpose by the Administrator; shall be preceded by such public notice as, in the opinion of the Administrator, will afford interested persons reasonable opportunity to attend and present information; and minutes of the proceedings at such hearing shall be obtained. Hearings shall be informal and technical rules of evidence shall not apply. Such hearings are for the purpose of obtaining information for the assistance of the Secretary. However, in discharging his responsibilities under section 22, the Secretary is not restricted to the information adduced at the hearings.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                       4,627,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,905,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   277,000
<INVENTORY>                                 28,031,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            43,779,000
<PP&E>                                      22,956,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,804,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              54,665,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       23,329,000
<BONDS>                                      8,573,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,994,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,769,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                54,665,000
<SALES>                                     16,620,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,620,000
<CGS>                                       11,455,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,864,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             359,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                387,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   147,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            240,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   240,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06


</TABLE>
# C_2014145EN.01000401.xml

| 15.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/4

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 6 May 2014

appointing one member of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency

2014/C 145/03

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (1), and in particular Article 79 thereof,

1

Whereas:

| (1) | Article 79 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 provides that the Council is to appoint as members of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency (‘the Management Board’) one representative from each Member State. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 79 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 provides that the Council is to appoint as members of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency (‘the Management Board’) one representative from each Member State.

| (2) | By its Decision of 17 May 2011 (2), the Council appointed 15 members of the Management Board. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

By its Decision of 17 May 2011 (2), the Council appointed 15 members of the Management Board.

2

| (3) | The Government of Malta has informed the Council of its intention to replace the Maltese representative on the Management Board and has submitted a nomination for a new representative, who should be appointed for a period which runs until 31 May 2015, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Government of Malta has informed the Council of its intention to replace the Maltese representative on the Management Board and has submitted a nomination for a new representative, who should be appointed for a period which runs until 31 May 2015,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Mr Tristan Charles CAMILLERI, of Maltese nationality, born on 18 May 1980, shall be appointed member of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency, replacing Mr Francis E. FARRUGIA, for the period from 6 May 2014 to 31 May 2015.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 6 May 2014.

For the Council

The President

G. STOURNARAS

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 151, 21.5.2011, p. 1.

2

---