alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) 2:06cr169-WHA

)

CHRISTOPHER IMAN ULMER )

DARRYL LAMONT BROWN )

RODRIGEZ CHILDRES )

JAMES CALVIN TALLEY )

WILMONT TIMOTHY BARNETT )

ORDER OF TEMPORARY DETENTION

PENDING HEARING PURSUANT TO BAIL

REFORM ACT

Upon the motion of the government, it is ORDERED that a detention hearing

is set for March 1, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 5-B, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. Federal

Building and United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery,

Alabama before the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Pending this hearing, the

defendants shall be held in custody of the U. S. Marshal and produced for the hearing.

DONE, this 23rd day of February, 2007.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 71 Filed 02/23/2007 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           11337
<SECURITIES>                                       560
<RECEIVABLES>                                      241
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 12138
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   12138
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              206
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       11863
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     12138
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  8009
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1684
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   256
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   6069
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               6069
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      6069
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.29
        

</TABLE>
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

ROBERT HALL,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO MODIFY UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3582

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion (doc. 217) to

modify sentence under the retroactive crack cocaine amendmentand 18 U.S.C. §

3582(c). The Government filed a response in opposition (docs. 216 and 218).

Upon review, the Court finds that Defendant is not entitled to a sentence

reduction because application of the guideline amendment results in no change

to his sentencing range. Amendment 591 does not apply to Defendant. With

regard to Amendment 706, Defendant received a Career Offender enhancement,

which determined his base offense level under the sentencing guidelines. 

Because Defendant’s sentencing range remains the same under the amended

guidelines, he is not eligible for a reduction. United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d

1323, 1327-28 (11th Cir. 2008).

Case 4:01-cr-00047-MW-CAS Document 219 Filed 02/04/09 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

CASE NO.: 4:01cr47-SPM

To the extent Defendant raises other arguments, no relief will be granted. 

Defendant filed a prior § 2255 motion (see docs. 126, 154, and 193) and has not

obtained an order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to authorize a

second motion. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that motion (doc. 217) to modify sentence is

denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of February, 2009.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:01-cr-00047-MW-CAS Document 219 Filed 02/04/09 Page 2 of 2
Amendment to Class B Warrant Agreement



 Exhibit 10.73 
 AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 CLASS B WARRANT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment to the Class B Warrant Agreement dated December 13,
2006 (the “Agreement”) is made as of May 13, 2009 by and between Middle Kingdom Alliance Corporation (the “Company”) and Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company (“Warrant Agent”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Warrant Agent are parties to the Agreement; 
 WHEREAS, the Company completed an offering of its securities on December 13, 2006 pursuant to which it issued, among other securities, Class B warrants pursuant to the terms of the Agreement; 
 WHEREAS, the prospectus included in the registration statement pursuant to which the Class B warrants were issued (the “Prospectus”) stated
that if no registration statement is effective permitting the sale of the shares of common stock underlying the Class B warrants, that the Class B warrants may be exercised on a cashless basis commencing one year after such warrants are initially
exercisable; 
 WHEREAS, the parties inadvertently failed to include the foregoing provision in the Agreement; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Warrant Agent desire to amend the terms and conditions contained in the Agreement to reflect the terms in the Prospectus.

 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Warrant Agent agree as follows. 
  

	1.	Section 3.3.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to add the following sentence to the end of the current section: 

 “Notwithstanding the foregoing, at any time commencing one year after the commencement of the Exercise period, if no registration statement is
effective permitting the sale of the shares of Common Stock underlying the Warrants, the Warrants may be exercised on a “cashless” basis.” 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Amendment to the Class B Warrant Agreement as of the date first written above. 
  

			
	 CONTINENTAL STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY,
 as Trustee

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Steven G. Nelson

	Name:	 	Steven G. Nelson
	Title:	 	Chairman
	
	MIDDLE KINGDOM ALLIANCE CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Bernard J. Tanenbaum III

	Name:	 	Bernard J. Tanenbaum III
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer
#### § 75.12 When application deemed filed.

An application shall be deemed filed when received by the Division or the Federal Seed Laboratory.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Registrant's December 31, 1997 Form 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         407,428
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,449,884
<ALLOWANCES>                                    82,375
<INVENTORY>                                    351,331
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,460,222
<PP&E>                                      24,576,717
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,602,015
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,647,676
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,098,250
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,607
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,642,621
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,647,676
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,779,249
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,810,528
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,384,325
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                894,652
<INCOME-TAX>                                   405,687
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            488,965
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   366,245<F1>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>The difference between Income from Continuing operations of $488,965 and Net
Income of $366,245 relates to $122,720 of dividends paid to minority interests
in 1997.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Imperial Diner, Inc., et al., Petitioners, v State Division of Human Rights et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law to review an order of the State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated August 1, 1979, which affirmed an order of the State Division of Human Rights, dated October 27, 1978, which found that petitioners had discriminated against the complainant because of her creed and which ordered them to, *inter alia,*(1) offer to re-employ her; (2) pay her, as damages, her lost earnings; and (3) pay her $500 for her "shock, humiliation and outrage”. The State Division of Human Rights has cross-moved to enforce its order. Petition granted, order annulled and cross application denied, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the complaint charging an unlawful discriminatory practice is dismissed. The finding by the State Division of Human Rights of unlawful discrimination was not supported by substantial evidence. The record discloses only one instance where, in the presence of other people, petitioner Kayantas uttered an intemperate, crude and anti-Semitic remark directed at complainant. Moreover, the record also reveals that on the same day the utterance was made Kayantas’ partner urged the complainant to return to work as a waitress at the petitioner diner, and that several days later when complainant returned *595to pick up her paycheck, Kayantas urged her to return and offered her a good station. Thus the record is devoid of evidence showing a systematic exclusion or restriction, or a generalized pattern of unlawful discrimination, or any evidence of persistent religious or other unlawful discrimination directed at the complainant. Absent such a showing we cannot confirm the order of the appeal board which affirmed the order of the State Division of Human Rights *(Matter of Brooklyn Coll, of City Univ. of N. Y. v State Div. of Human Rights,*39 AD2d 707). Titone, J. P., Mangano, Rabin and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 74071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30270]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION BOARD MEETING


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE:  December 13, 2010, 9 a.m.-2 p.m.

PLACE:  901 N. Stuart Street, Tenth Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

STATUS:  Open session except for the portion specified as closed 
session as provided in 22 CFR 1004.4(f).

Matters To Be Considered

    [dec221] Approval of the Minutes of the March 29, 2010, Meeting of 
the Board of Directors.
    [dec221] Advisory Council Report and Recommendations.
    [dec221] Role of Advisory Council.
    [dec221] President's Report.
    [dec221] IAF Program Activities.
    [dec221] Operations.
    [dec221] Congressional Affairs.
    [dec221] RedEAmerica.
    [dec221] IAF Going Forward.
    [dec221] Executive Session--Personnel Issues.

Portions To Be Open To The Public

    [dec221] Approval of the Minutes of the March 29, 2010, Meeting of 
the Board of Directors.
    [dec221] Advisory Council Report and Recommendations.
    [dec221] Role of Advisory Council.
    [dec221] President's Report.
    [dec221] IAF Program Activities.
    [dec221] Operations.
    [dec221] Congressional Affairs.
    [dec221] RedEAmerica.
    [dec221] IAF Going Forward.

Portions To Be Closed To The Public

    [dec221] Executive Session--Personnel issues. Closed session as 
provided in 22 CFR Part 1004.4(f).

Contact Person For More Information: Jennifer Hodges Reynolds.

    Dated: November 23, 2010.
Jennifer Hodges Reynolds,
General Counsel, (703) 306-4301.
[FR Doc. 2010-30270 Filed 11-26-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7025-01-P
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 2219

_____________________________
L YNDA L ORRAINE R OBERTSON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Linda F. McCallum , Judge

. March 11, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OWE , B ILBREY , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley B

. Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
52.236-17 Layout of Work.

As prescribed in 36.517 , insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts when a fixed-price

construction contract is contemplated and use of this clause is appropriate due to a need for

accurate work layout and for siting verification during work performance:

Layout of Work (Apr 1984)

The Contractor shall lay out its work from Government established base lines and bench marks

indicated on the drawings, and shall be responsible for all measurements in connection with the

layout. The Contractor shall furnish, at its own expense, all stakes, templates, platforms, equipment,

tools, materials, and labor required to lay out any part of the work. The Contractor shall be

responsible for executing the work to the lines and grades that may be established or indicated by

the Contracting Officer. The Contractor shall also be responsible for maintaining and preserving all

stakes and other marks established by the Contracting Officer until authorized to remove them. If

such marks are destroyed by the Contractor or through its negligence before their removal is

authorized, the Contracting Officer may replace them and deduct the expense of the replacement

from any amounts due or to become due to the Contractor.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.236 [Reserved]
S. 276

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

An Act

To revise the boundary of the Wind Cave National Park in the State of South

Dakota.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Wind Cave National Park

Boundary Revision Act of 2005’’.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means the map entitled ‘‘Wind

Cave National Park Boundary Revision’’, numbered 108/80,030,

and dated June 2002.

(2) PARK.—The term ‘‘Park’’ means the Wind Cave National

Park in the State.

(3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary

of the Interior.

(4) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the State of South

Dakota.

SEC. 3. LAND ACQUISITION.

(a) AUTHORITY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may acquire the land or

interest in land described in subsection (b)(1) for addition to

the Park.

(2) MEANS.—An acquisition of land under paragraph (1)

may be made by donation, purchase from a willing seller with

donated or appropriated funds, or exchange.

(b) BOUNDARY.—

(1) MAP AND ACREAGE.—The land referred to in subsection

(a)(1) shall consist of approximately 5,675 acres, as generally

depicted on the map.

(2) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The map shall be on file and

available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of

the National Park Service.

(3) REVISION.—The boundary of the Park shall be adjusted

to reflect the acquisition of land under subsection (a)(1).

SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall administer any land

acquired under section 3(a)(1) as part of the Park in accordance

with laws (including regulations) applicable to the Park.

(b) TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION.—
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 2:06-cr-169-WKW

 )

JAMES CALVIN TALLEY )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the government's motion for release of prisoner filed on April 26,

2007, and for good cause, it is ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is GRANTED.

It is hereby ORDERED that the United States Marshals Service release custody of James

Calvin Talley, to Todd Mims, DEA, and/or Doug Walters, DEA, on April 27, 2007, through July

27, 2007, so that said agents can take such prisoner into custody without the necessity of the

presence of a Deputy United States Marshal.

It is further ORDERED that Todd Mims, DEA, and/or Doug Walters, DEA, return said

prisoner into the custody of the United States Marshals Service when they have finished with him.

Done, this 27th day of April, 2007.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 221 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 1 of 1
SAT (concerns) (12/30/2014): Analogs: Related C Migration PBT rating: P3B2T2 PMN

- Health 1

- 2, Eco 1, P3B1T1; Deg Pdt

- Health 2, Eco 3, P3B2T2 Health: 2 Inhalation, XB Testing (Testing desired) Eco: 3 No releases to water, XB Testing (Testing desired)
Case 4:73-cv-00177-WS Document 1 Filed 11/25/03 Page 1 of 11
Case 4:73-cv-00177-WS Document 1 Filed 11/25/03 Page 2 of 11
Case 4:73-cv-00177-WS Document 1 Filed 11/25/03 Page 3 of 11
Case 4:73-cv-00177-WS Document 1 Filed 11/25/03 Page 4 of 11
Case 4:73-cv-00177-WS Document 1 Filed 11/25/03 Page 5 of 11
Case 4:73-cv-00177-WS Document 1 Filed 11/25/03 Page 6 of 11
Case 4:73-cv-00177-WS Document 1 Filed 11/25/03 Page 7 of 11
Case 4:73-cv-00177-WS Document 1 Filed 11/25/03 Page 8 of 11
Case 4:73-cv-00177-WS Document 1 Filed 11/25/03 Page 9 of 11
Case 4:73-cv-00177-WS Document 1 Filed 11/25/03 Page 10 of 11
Case 4:73-cv-00177-WS Document 1 Filed 11/25/03 Page 11 of 11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 5:99cr15-SPM

FELIPE JAIMES,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND

MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion for leave to

appeal in forma pauperis (doc. 1711) and motion for certificate of appealability

(doc. 1712). This Court has previously denied a certificate of appealability to

Defendant. See doc. 1704. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied

because the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: the motion for leave to appeal in forma

pauperis (doc. 1711) and motion for certificate of appealability (doc. 1712) are

denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of September, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
#### § 63.104 Vacancies.

To fill any vacancy occasioned by the death, removal, resignation, or disqualification of any member of the Board, the Secretary shall appoint a successor from the most recent list of nominations for the position or the Secretary shall request nominations for a successor pursuant to § 63.101 and such successor shall be appointed pursuant to § 63.103.
§ 63.102 Nominee's agreement to serve. Any person nominated to serve on the Board shall file with the Secretary at the time of the nomination a written agreement to: ( a ) Serve on the Board if appointed;
( b ) Disclose any relationship that may create a conflict of interest under § 63.112; and
( c ) Withdraw from participation in deliberations, decision-making, or voting on matters which concern any relationship disclosed under paragraph (b) of this section.
#### § 63.2 Board.

*Board* means National Sheep Industry Improvement Center Board of Directors established under § 63.100.
#### FRIED v. FELDMAN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

June 18, 1914.)

Trial (§ 139*)—Question of Law ob Fact—Dismissal of Complaint.

The trial court improperly dismissed the complaint in a broker’s action for commissions, where, giving the testimony of plaintiff and his witnesses the benefit of every legitimate inference, there was sufficient proof of the employment, and a promise by defendant to pay for such services.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 332, 333, 338-341, 365; Dec. Dig. § 139.*]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, Second District.

Action by Louis Fried against Morris Feldman. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Argued June term, 1914, before SEABURY, PAGE, and BIJUR, JJ.

D. Friedman, of New York City, for appellant.

M. Levy, of New York City, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff sued for broker’s commissions. At the close of plaintiff’s case, on motion of the defendant, the complaint was dismissed. Giving the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses the benefit of every legitimate inference that can be drawn therefrom, there was sufficient proof of the employment of the plaintiff by the defendant to purchase a house, and a promise on defendant’s part to pay for such services.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA - 2012 - 0639 Directorate Identifier: 2012NM005AD

601R - 27 - 160 --- 9/29/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008