alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Sylvia Gross, Respondent, v Jack Gross, Appellant.

— In a support proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated June 1, 1978, which, after a hearing, (1) fixed the amount of support for the petitioner wife at $275 per week, and (2) awarded a counsel fee of $2,000. Order modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision awarding a counsel fee of $2,000. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remitted to the Family Court for a hearing on the issue of counsel fees and for a determination *de novo*as, in the court’s discretion, justice requires, having regard to the economic needs of both parties and the circumstances of the case. In *Childs v Childs*(69 AD2d 406), applicable to this proceeding since it was pending on March 5, 1979, the date of the decision in *Orr v Orr*(440 US 268), we held that section 237 of the Domestic Relations Law was constitutional insofar as it authorizes the trial court to award counsel fees to either party on a gender-neutral, needs-only basis. Section 438 of the Family Court Act also provides for counsel fees, based on the same standards as section 237 of the Domestic Relations Law (see *Rosner v Rosner,*82 Mise 2d 603), including gender. Therefore, we hold that section 438 of the Family Court Act must be construed on a gender-neutral, needs-only basis. On the record before us, we cannot determine the wife’s ability to pay her attorney because there is no indication of the source of the $7,500 that she had advanced counsel as a retainer, with the understanding that counsel "would return to petitioner *950the amount advanced pursuant to the court’s directions.” Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Cohalan and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
33.201 Definitions.

As used in this subpartAccrual of a claim means the date when all events, that fix the alleged liability of either the

Government or the contractor and permit assertion of the claim, were known or should have been

known. For liability to be fixed, some injury must have occurred. However, monetary damages need

not have been incurred.

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) means any type of procedure or combination of procedures

voluntarily used to resolve issues in controversy. These procedures may include, but are not limited

to, conciliation, facilitation, mediation, fact-finding, minitrials, arbitration, and use of ombudsmen.

Defective certification means a certificate which alters or otherwise deviates from the language in

33.207(c) or which is not executed by a person authorized to bind the contractor with respect to the

claim. Failure to certify shall not be deemed to be a defective certification.

Issue in controversy means a material disagreement between the Government and the contractor

that-

(1) May result in a claim; or

(2) Is all or part of an existing claim.

Misrepresentation of fact means a false statement of substantive fact, or any conduct which leads to

the belief of a substantive fact material to proper understanding of the matter in hand, made with

intent to deceive or mislead.

Parent topic: Subpart 33.2 - Disputes and Appeals
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MARTREY D. BASS

Petitioner,

vs. Case No.: 4:20cv506/TKW/ZCB

RICKY D. DIXON,

Respondent.

__________________________/

ORDER

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

Recommendation (Doc. 63) and Petitioner’s objection (Doc. 66). The Court 

reviewed the issues raised in the objection de novo as required by 28 U.S.C. 

§636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Based on that review, the Court agrees with 

the magistrate judge’s determination that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief 

under 28 U.S.C. §2254 and that a certificate of appealability should be denied. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that

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

incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. Petitioner’s motion to voluntarily dismiss Ground Seven (Doc. 61) is

GRANTED.

3. Petitioner’s third amended §2254 petition (Doc. 49) is DENIED.

4. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

Case 4:20-cv-00506-TKW-ZCB Document 67 Filed 01/16/24 Page 1 of 2
5. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close 

the case file.

DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of January, 2024.

__________________________________

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00506-TKW-ZCB Document 67 Filed 01/16/24 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of SoPac Cellular Solutions Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending August 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ezra E.
Ezra, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
14th day of December, 2009.


/s/ Ezra E. Ezra
-------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
FLN (Rev. 4/2004) Deficiency Order Page 1 of 1

5:97cr24LAC - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ERIC JONES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs

ERIC JONES

Case No.5:97cr24LAC

ORDER

Your document, MOTION FOR RE-SENTENCING HEARING AND FOR LEAVE TO

APPEAR AT HEARING, was referred to the undersigned with the following deficiencies:

Motion does not include Rule 7(B) conference certificate as required by

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Local Rules.

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the document shall remain in the electronic

file, but the court will not consider it until you have corrected the above deficiencies

through the filing of a corrected document.

DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of February, 2007.

s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:97-cr-00024-LC-MD Document 160 Filed 02/28/07 Page 1 of 1
## Space for public service posters

at Dulles Airport An airport ready to assist passengers Presenter : Charlie Leocha, Director Consumer Travel Alliance December 16, 2013

1Dulles Airport displays - Example 1

2Dulles Airport displays - Example 2

3Dulles Airport displays - Example 3

4Dulles Airport displays - Example 4

5Dulles Airport displays - Example 5

6Dulles Airport displays - Example 6

7Dulles Airport displays - Example 7

8Dulles Airport displays - Example 8

9
**EXHIBIT 31.2**I, Dana C. Russell, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Novell, Inc; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15(d)-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonableassurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accountingprinciples;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: September 7, 2007     /s/ DANA C. RUSSELL Dana C. Russell    Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2690 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2690

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and six

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 8801 Sudley Road in Manassas, Virginia, as the ``Harry J. Parrish Post 
                                Office''.

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

SECTION 1. HARRY J. PARRISH POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 8801 Sudley Road, Manassas, Virginia, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Harry J. Parrish Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Harry J. 
Parrish Post Office.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### § 58.12 When application may be rejected.

An application for inspection or grading service may be rejected by the Administrator (a) when the applicant fails to meet the requirements of the regulations in this subpart prescribing the conditions under which the service is made available; (b) when the product is owned by, or located on the premises of, a person currently denied the benefits of the Act; (c) when an individual holding office or a responsible position with or having a substantial financial interest or share with the applicant is currently denied the benefits of the Act or was responsible in whole or in part for the current denial of the benefits of the Act to any person; (d) when the application is an attempt on the part of a person currently denied the benefits of the Act to obtain inspection or grading service; (e) when the product was produced from unwholesome raw material or was produced under insanitary or otherwise unsatisfactory conditions; (f) when the product is of illegal composition or is lacking satisfactory keeping quality; (g) when the product has been produced in a plant which has not been surveyed and approved for inspection or grading service; (h) when fees billed are not paid within 30 days; or (i) when there is noncompliance with the Act or this part or instructions issued hereunder. When an application is rejected, the applicant shall be notified in writing by the Area Supervisor or his designated representative, the reason or reasons for the rejection.

[37 FR 22363, Oct. 19, 1972, as amended at 53 FR 20278, June 3, 1988]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Angeles
Partners XIV 1997 Second Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000759859
<NAME> ANGELES PARTNERS XIV
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             655
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       12
<ALLOWANCES>                                        11
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          40,781
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,144
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,535
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         44,028
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (31,188)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,535
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,839
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,494
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,318
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,655)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,655)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,655)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (37.31)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JAMES RUSSELL JOHNSON,

# 13000034,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:20cv253-RV-MAF

OFFICER GANDY,

Defendant.

______________________________/

O R D E R

This cause now comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation, ECF No. 16. Plaintiff, who is pro se, was furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and was afforded an opportunity to file objections

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, 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, ECF No. 16, is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

Case 5:20-cv-00253-RV-MAF Document 17 Filed 02/09/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice and the Clerk of Court must

close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of February, 2021.

 S/ Roger Vinson 

 ROGER VINSON 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 5:20cv253-RV-MAF

Case 5:20-cv-00253-RV-MAF Document 17 Filed 02/09/21 Page 2 of 2
Resolution of the Compensation and Human Resources Committee



 Exhibit 10.1 
 MEETING OF THE COMPENSATION 
 AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE OF 
 THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF 
 NORTEL
NETWORKS CORPORATION AND 
 NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED 
 FEBRUARY 19, 2009 
  
  
  
 EXTRACT 
 Policy on Company Aircraft 
 RESOLVED, That, the revocation of the Compensation and Human Resources Committee Policy on Company Aircraft, as recommended to the Committee, be
approved effective January 22, 2009.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board, December 7, 2010, 9 a.m. to December 7, 2010, 5:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on November 8, 2010, 75 FR 68611.                

This notice is amending the start and end times of the closed session from 4:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m. to 4:15 p.m. to 5 p.m. The adjournment time of this meeting has also been changed from 5:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.

Dated: November 22, 2010. 

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-29950 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert Oscar Wern, Appellant.

Judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered September 13, 1966, modified, on the law, by reducing the sentence imposed to one year. As so modified, judgment affirmed. No questions of fact were considered. In our opinion, the indictment clearly charged a violation of section 480 of the Penal Law and not section 481. It is equally clear from the statements made by defendant’s counsel at the time the plea of guilty was entered that the plea was to an attempt to- violate section 480. The maximum legal sentence which could have been imposed was one 37ear. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
52.222-28 [Reserved]

Parent topic: 52.222 [Reserved]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7439

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAWN MICHELLE DEIBERT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, Chief 

District Judge. (5:05-cr-00024-GEC-1; 5:11-cv-80346-GEC)

Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 2, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dawn Michelle Deibert, Appellant Pro Se. Jeb Thomas Terrien, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dawn Michelle Deibert seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Deibert 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
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:01cr47-SPM

WILLIE JAMES FRANCIS,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER DENYING AMENDED MOTION UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3582

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant’s Amendment to Motion

to Reduce Sentence, Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c). Doc. 201. For the

following reasons, the motion will be denied.

1. The Court has already issued an order (doc. 199) denying 

Defendant’s prior motion (doc. 194) to reduce his sentence under the retroactive

crack cocaine amendment (Amendments 706 and 711) and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). 

2. The additional grounds Defendant raises based on Amendment 709

are unavailing because, as Defendant acknowledges, Amendment 709 is not

listed in § 1B1.10(c) of the sentencing guidelines. Accordingly, it cannot be used

to reduce Defendant’s sentence. United States v. Armstrong, 347 F.3d 905, 909

(11th Cir. 2003).

Case 4:01-cr-00047-MCR-AK Document 209 Filed 05/12/08 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

CASE NO.: 4:01cr47-SPM

3. Finally, Defendant was subject to a statutory mandatory minimum

sentence that determined his sentencing range. The guideline amendments

have no effect on Defendant’s sentencing range. 

Based on the foregoing, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Amendment to Motion to

Reduce Sentence, Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) is denied. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of May, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:01-cr-00047-MCR-AK Document 209 Filed 05/12/08 Page 2 of 2