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

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:02-cr-00038-MP-AK

MAHMOUD ELDICK,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 213, Defendant's Motion for Leave to Appeal in

Forma Pauperis and Doc. 212, Defendant's Motion for Certificate of Appealability. This Court

will issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard

by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his

constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 326, 123 S. Ct. 1029,

1034 (2003).

Here, Defendant argued that he pled guilty without realizing that he only faced a fiveyear, rather than twenty-year, maximum sentence. As discussed in the order at Doc. 209 and the

Report and Recommendation at Doc. 207, during the hearing, but before the ultimate acceptance

of the guilty plea, the Court repeatedly informed Defendant that the penalty he faced was only 5,

not 20, years on Count Two. Defendant repeatedly assured the Court that he understood. He

clearly acknowledged during the hearing (1) that he knew the penalty for Count Two was 5
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:02-cr-00038-MP-AK

years, (2) that he had discussed that fact and also the pros and cons of going to trial with his

counsel, and (3) that he knew that by pleading guilty he was giving up any defenses he might

have to the charges. Accordingly, Defendant has not made a substantial showing of the violation

of a constitutional right.

With regard to Doc. 213, under Fed. R. App. P. 24(1), a party seeking to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal must file a motion with the district court, and the Court, under Fed. R.

App. P. 24(a)(4) may certify that the appeal is not taken in good faith and for that reason deny

the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons given above, the Court hereby certifies

that the appeal is not taken in good faith. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is

likewise denied. Accordingly it is hereby,

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Doc. 212, the Motion for Certificate of Appealability, is denied. Doc. 213, the Motion to

Proceed on Appeal in Forma Pauperis is also denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of June, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
Bureau of Labor Statistics

**Series Id: Series title:**  **Labor force status: Type of data:**  **Age: Years:**  **Year Qtr1**  **Qtr2 Qtr3**  **Qtr4 Annual**  **2011** 102174 Employed full time (persons who usually work Number in thousands 25 years and over 2011 to 2011 

### Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey **Original Data Value** LNU02500048Q **Not Seasonally Adjusted** (Unadj) Employed, Usually W ork Full Time, 25

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 16, 2011 (02:08:11 PM)
Letter from James M. Shapiro, dated March 19, 2009



 Exhibit 10.42 
 March 19, 2009 
 Steve Van Dick 
 Hansen Medical, Inc. 
 800 East Middlefield Road 
 Mountain View, CA 94043 
 Dear Steve, 
 I hereby waive any cash fees due to me for my service as a non-employee director of Hansen Medical, Inc. (the “Company”) during the 2009 calendar year. This applies to all annual retainers and meeting fees, whether for my service
as a non-employee director generally or for my service on any committee of the Company’s Board of Directors. 
  

	
	Very truly yours,
	
	/s/ JAMES M. SHAPIRO
	James M. Shapiro
#### § 58.64 OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The following control number has been assigned to the information collection requirements in 7 CFR part 58, subpart A, by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-511.

| 7 CFR section where requirements are described | Current OMB control No. |
| --- | --- |
| 58.8(a)(b) | 0581-0126 |
| 58.9 | 0581-0126 |
| 58.14 | 0581-0126 |
| 58.23 | 0581-0126 |
| 58.30 | 0581-0126 |
| 58.33 | 0581-0126 |
| 58.49 | 0581-0126 |
| 58.50(d)(e) | 0581-0126 |
| 58.51 | 0581-0126 |
| 58.122(b) | 0581-0126 |

[49 FR 6881, Feb. 24, 1984]
49.101 Authorities and responsibilities.

(a) The termination clauses or other contract clauses authorize contracting officers to terminate

contracts for convenience, or for default, and to enter into settlement agreements under this

regulation.

(b) The contracting officer shall terminate contracts, whether for default or convenience, only when

it is in the Government’s interest. The contracting officer shall effect a no-cost settlement instead of

issuing a termination notice when-

(1) It is known that the contractor will accept one,

(2) Government property was not furnished, and

(3) There are no outstanding payments, debts due the Government, or other contractor obligations.

(c) When the price of the undelivered balance of the contract is less than $5,000, the contract should

not normally be terminated for convenience but should be permitted to run to completion.

(d) After the contracting officer issues a notice of termination, the termination contracting officer

(TCO) is responsible for negotiating any settlement with the contractor, including a no-cost

settlement if appropriate. Auditors and TCO’s shall promptly schedule and complete audit reviews

and negotiations, giving particular attention to the need for timely action on all settlements involving

small business concerns.

(e) If the same item is under contract with both large and small business concerns and it is

necessary to terminate for convenience part of the units still to be delivered, preference shall be

given to the continuing performance of small business contracts over large business contracts unless

the chief of the contracting office determines that this is not in the Government’s interest.

(f) The contracting officer is responsible for the release of excess funds resulting from the

termination unless this responsibility is specifically delegated to the TCO.

Parent topic: Subpart 49.1 - General Principles
In The Matter Of: 

CLELIA AYALA 

Respondent 

SERVED: July 26, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFiCE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0910 

Case No. 2010S0290061 

NOTICE OF RETURN 

OF RESPONDENT'S DISCOVERY MATERIALS 

On AprilS, 2013 the prose Respondent, Ms. Clelia Ayala, filed with the Office of 

Hearings a letter dated April1, 2013, in which she requested certain admissions from the FAA. 

Attached to this April1, 2013 letter were a variety of original discovery materials, which the 

Respondent requested be utilized as Exhibits I-XIV at a future hearing. The April 1, 2013 Letter 

and attachments were not accompanied by any certificate of s·ervice. These documents were not 

filed with the Hearing Docket, but were served on the FAA by the Respondent. (5/14/13 Tr. 

16:14-19) . 

On June 3, 2013 the FAA filed a Notice ofSettlemerit, which included a signed 

agreement by the pro se Respondent that her appeal should be dismissed with prejudice. 

The Respondent's April1, 2013 discovery materials included medical records, tax 

returns, cell phone bills, checking account statements, and credit card statements. These 

documents contained multiple references to sensitive, personally identifiable information ("PII") 

subject to the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule and the 

Privacy Act. None of the PII had been redacted before submission to the Office of Hearings or 

the FAA. Because the parties have submitted a settlement notice, there is no need for the Office 

of Hearings to retain the materials or to ensure the filing of the same with the Hearing Docket. 

Therefore, the original April 1, 2003 letter and attached documents are hereby returned to 

the pro se Respondent, without any concurrent filing of these documents with the Hearing 

Docket. 

Attachment: Service List 

Documents: Returned to Ms. Ayala 
I 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Mr. William P. Vines, Esq. 

Complainant's Counsel 

ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration, Southern Region 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

·P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Ms. Clelia Ayala 

Respondent 

11175 Georgia Avenue, Apt. 603 

Wheaton, MD 20902 

TEL: 305-588-9397 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0910 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 

For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 

Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 2059 I; Attention: Hearing 

Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

** **

**LONG BEACH SECURITIES CORP. **

**RESTATED OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

 

I, Douglas A. Potolsky, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this report on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–D required to befiled in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10–K of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-8 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain anyuntrue statement of a  material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to beprovided under Form 10–D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.             Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material respects; and

 

5.             All of the reports on assessment of compliance with Servicing Criteria for asset-backedsecurities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with Servicing Criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a–18 and 15d–18have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10–K. 

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  Deutsche BankNational Trust Company.

 

 

Date:  As of March 15,2007

|   |   | /s/ Doug Potolsky                                                                            |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Name:  DougPotolsky                                                                     |
|   |   | Title:   President and Senior Officer in Charge of Securitization of the Depositor |
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES AND

INVESTMENTS INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs. 5:02-CV-80-SPM/AK

BAGGETT BROTHERS FARM INC, et al.,

Defendants,

_____________________________/

ORDER 

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Unseal

Orders (doc. 264). As the relevant Orders are have been unsealed (docs. 277,

278), it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The motion (doc. 264) is denied as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED this seventeenth day of September, 2009.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
52.213-3 Notice to Supplier.

As prescribed in 13.302-5(c), insert the following clause:

Notice to Supplier (Apr 1984)

This is a firm order ONLY if your price does not exceed the maximum line item or total price in the

Schedule. Submit invoices to the Contracting Officer. If you cannot perform in exact accordance

with this order, Withhold Performance, and notify the Contracting Officer immediately, giving your

quotation.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.213 [Reserved]
NO. 07-08-0006-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	DECEMBER 30, 2008

	______________________________

	In the Matter of the Marriage of MARY PALACIOS

	and 	JESUS PALACIOS and In the Interest

	of LORENA PALACIOS, A Child

										_________________________________

	FROM THE 140TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 2005-532,385; HON. JIM BOB DARNELL, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	Opinion

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	Jesus Palacios (Jesus) appeals from a final judgment divorcing him from Mary Palacios (Mary) and dividing property.  Through three issues, he effectively contends that the trial court’s failure to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law prevents him from assessing the legitimacy of the property division.  We reverse and remand.

	 On September 23, 2008, we abated the cause back to the trial court to file findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to §6.711 of the Texas Family Code.1  The trial court had until October 23, 2008, to file same.  That date has now passed without compliance, and subsequent efforts to secure the findings were unsuccessful.  

	The failure of the trial court to file sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law when properly requested is presumed to be harmful unless the contrary appears on the face of the record.  Tenery v. Tenery, 932 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Tex.1996).  From the face of the record before us, we cannot say that the trial court’s omission was harmless.  This is so because we do not know what the trial court considered to be separate property; nor do we know the valuation placed on the property that was subject to the division order.  Thus, the appropriate remedy is to reverse and remand the cause for a new trial.  Tenery v. Tenery, 932 S.W.2d at 30; see Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. v. Laca, 243 S.W.3d 791, 796 (Tex. App.–El Paso 2007, no pet.).  	 

	Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case for a new trial.				

							Brian Quinn

						          Chief Justice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMES ARTHUR LEE,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 4:20cv-548-TKW-MAF

MARK S. INCH, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________/

ORDER

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 12). No objections were filed. Upon due consideration of 

the Report and Recommendation and the case file, the Court agrees with the 

magistrate judge’s determinations that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis should be denied under the three strikes statute, 28 U.S.C. §1915(g) and 

this case should be dismissed under that statute and for failure to prosecute. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5) is DENIED.

Case 4:20-cv-00548-TKW-MAF Document 13 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 2
2

3. This case is DISMISSED, and the Clerk shall close the file.

DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of March, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00548-TKW-MAF Document 13 Filed 03/29/21 Page 2 of 2
25.1001 Waiver of right to examination of records.       (a)                   *Policy*. The clause at 52.215-2, Audit and Records-Negotiation, prescribed at 15.209(b), and paragraph (d) of the clause at 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders-Commercial Products and Commercial Services, prescribed at 12.301(b)(4), implement                       10 U.S.C. 3841                                          and 41 U.S.C. 4706. The basic clauses authorize examination of records by the Comptroller General.                                                         (1) Insert the appropriate basic clause, whenever possible, in negotiated contracts with foreign contractors.                                                            (2) The contracting officer may use 52.215-2 with its Alternate III or 52.212-5 with its Alternate I after-                                                                           (i) Exhausting all reasonable efforts to include the basic clause;                                                                              (ii) Considering factors such as alternate sources of supply, additional cost, and time of delivery; and                                                                              (iii) The head of the agency has executed a determination and findings in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, with the concurrence of the Comptroller General. However, concurrence of the Comptroller General is not required if the contractor is a foreign government or agency thereof or is precluded by the laws of the country involved from making its records available for examination.                                                                                                                            (b)                   *Determination and findings*. The determination and findings must-                                                         (1) Identify the contract and its purpose, and identify if the contract is with a foreign contractor or with a foreign government or an agency of a foreign government;                                                            (2) Describe the efforts to include the basic clause;                                                            (3) State the reasons for the contractor’s refusal to include the basic clause;                                                            (4) Describe the price and availability of the supplies or services from the United States and other sources; and                                                            (5) Determine that it will best serve the interest of the United States to use the appropriate alternate clause in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 25.10 - Additional Foreign Acquisition Regulations
#### § 51.1274 Carefully hand-picked.

*Carefully hand-picked* means that the pears do not show evidence of rough handling or of having been on the ground.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Tobin, Appellant.

Judgment of the County Court, Rockland County, rendered May 9, 1966, affirmed. The identification of defendant by the prosecution’s witnesses cannot be held to be incredible as a matter of law *(People*v. *Seppi,*221 N. Y. 62, 68). Beldock, P, J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
T heHonorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western * District of Missouri, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-2804MN

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District v. * of Minnesota. * Arthur Lee Walls, III, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: February 10, 1998

Filed: February 20, 1998

_____________ Before FAGG and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, District Judge. *

_____________ PER CURIAM. Arthur Lee Walls, III appeals his sentence for possession with inte nt to distribute cocaine. On appeal, Walls challenges the identity and the quantity of the drugs th e district court attributed to Walls. After a carefu l review of the record, we conclude the district court's sentence was correct and further discussion is not warra nted. We affirm Walls's sentence. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
52.222-15 Certification of Eligibility.

As prescribed in 22.407(a), insert the following clause:

Certification of Eligibility (May 2014)

(a) By entering into this contract, the Contractor certifies that neither it nor any person or firm who

has an interest in the Contractor's firm is a person or firm ineligible to be awarded Government

contracts by virtue of 40 U.S.C. 3144(b)(2) or 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1).

(b) No part of this contract shall be subcontracted to any person or firm ineligible for award of a

Government contract by virtue of 40 U.S.C. 3144(b)(2) or 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1).

(c) The penalty for making false statements is prescribed in the U.S. Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C.1001.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.222 [Reserved]
#### Mary M. Mingis, Respondent, v. Daitch Crystal Dairies, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order, entered October 9, 1968, reversed and vacated, on the law, on. the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and disbursements, and plaintiff’s motion to vacate dismissal and to restore action to Trial Calendar denied. Plaintiff has shown neither a meritorious cause of action nor a reasonable excuse for the default resulting in the dismissal of the action. This personal injury action was commenced, and issue was joined, in October, 1964. A statement of readiness was never filed although pretrial procedures were complete by February, 1966, and a note of issue had been previously served and filed in June, 1965. The ease was marked off the calendar on June 27, 1966 and, no action having been taken within a year thereafter, the case was dismissed on June 28, 1967 pursuant to CPLR 3404. The office failures alleged by plaintiff’s attorney do not constitute an adequate excuse for the failure to discover that a statement of readiness had not been filed. (See *Tepperman*v. *Peri,*29 A D 2d 893, app. dsmd. 22 N Y 2d 703; *Filippi*v. *Grand Union Co.,*30 A D 2d 532; *Altman*v. *Stichman,*31 A D 2d 741.) Nor is there an acceptable excuse for the 15 months hiatus between the dismissal and this motion. (See *Back*v. *Stern,*23 A D 2d 837; *Altman*v. *Stichman, supra.)*Finally, the affidavit of merits submitted by plaintiff lacks a proper factual showing to establish a meritorious cause of action. Concur — Eager, J. P., *747Capozzoli, McGivern and Markewieh, JJ.; Nunez, J., disssents in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to affirm the order vacating the dismissal and restoring the action to the Trial Calendar. As found by Special Term the record indicates a meritorious cause of action, serious injuries, no intention by plaintiff to abandon the action and no merit to defendant’s claim of prejudice. The delay in filing a note of issue was in large part occasioned by plaintiff’s counsel’s disability of several months duration due to a heart attack. Plaintiff, a lady in her seventies, sustained injuries which confined her to the hospital for more than five months; among other injuries she claims a two-inch shortening of her left leg. On the facts as revealed by the record in this case, it is manifestly unfair to deprive this lady of her day in court.