alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 76039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30549]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-74,628]

Di-Pro, Inc., a Subsidiary of Bendix-Spicer/Knorr-Bremse Bendix-
Spicer Foundation Brake Including On-Site Leased Workers From Select, 
Act-1 and Pridestaff Fresno, CA; Amended Certification Regarding 
Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on October 8, 2010, applicable to workers of Di-Pro, Inc., a subsidiary 
of Bendix-Spicer/Knorr-Bremse, including on-site leased workers from 
Select, Fresno, California. The notice was published in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 2010 (75 FR 65520).
    At the request of a company official, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in activities related to the production of brake chambers and spring 
brakes for braking systems on air braked trucks, tractors and semi-
trailers.
    The company reports that workers leased from Act-1 and PrideStaff 
were employed on-site at the Fresno, California location of Di-Pro, 
Inc. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently 
under the control of Di-Pro, Inc., a subsidiary of Bendix-Spicer/Knorr-
Bremse, Bendix-Spicer Foundation Brake to be considered leased workers.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include workers leased from Act-1 and PrideStaff 
working on-site at the Fresno, California location of Di-Pro, Inc., a 
subsidiary of Bendix-Spicer/Knorr-Bremse, Bendix-Spicer Foundation 
Brake.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-74,628 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Di-Pro, Inc., a subsidiary of Bendix-Spicer/
Knorr-Bremse, Bendix-Spicer Foundation Brake, including on-site 
leased workers from Select, Act-1 and PrideStaff, Fresno, 
California, who became totally or partially separated from 
employment on or after September 9, 2009, through October 8, 2012, 
and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial 
separation from employment on the date of certification through two 
years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for 
adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act 
of 1974, as amended.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of November 2010.
Michael W. Jaffe,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-30549 Filed 12-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

SHAUNTWAN BARNES,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:21-cv-5-TKW-MJF

MARK INCH, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

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

Recommendation (Doc. 18). No objections were filed. Upon due consideration of 

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

magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed as an abuse of 

the judicial process based on Plaintiff’s failure to fully disclose his litigation history.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

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

incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and the Clerk shall close this case

file.

Case 5:21-cv-00005-TKW-MJF Document 19 Filed 08/09/21 Page 1 of 2
2

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

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:21-cv-00005-TKW-MJF Document 19 Filed 08/09/21 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

FRANK PATE,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 3:20cv5857-LC-HTC

PENSACOLA NAVAL BASE CO,

M V JOSEPH,

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

Respondents.

______________________/

ORDER

The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on December 7,

2020 (ECF No. 12). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title

28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined it

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 12) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to

Case No. 3:20cv5857-LC-HTC

Case 3:20-cv-05857-LC-HTC Document 16 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

prosecute or failure to comply with a Court order. 

4. The clerk of court is directed to close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of January, 2021.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 3:20cv5857-LC-HTC

Case 3:20-cv-05857-LC-HTC Document 16 Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7136

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

NORVEL LEE WOODSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, 

District Judge. (5:09-cr-00191-1; 5:12-cv-02529; 5:14-cv-16725)

Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norvel Lee Woodson, Appellant Pro Se. Gary L. Call, John J. 

Frail, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Norvel Lee Woodson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Woodson 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 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
52.237-3 Continuity of Services.       As prescribed in 37.110(c), insert the following clause:          Continuity of Services (Jan 1991)                                       (a) 						            The Contractor recognizes that the services under this contract are vital to the Government and must be continued without interruption and that, upon contract expiration, a successor, either the Government or another contractor, may continue them. The Contractor agrees to-                                                         (1) 								                Furnish phase-in training; and                                                            (2) 								                Exercise its best efforts and cooperation to effect an orderly and efficient transition to a successor.                                                                             (b) 						            The Contractor shall, upon the Contracting Officer’s written notice, (1) furnish phase-in, phase-out services for up to 90 days after this contract expires and (2) negotiate in good faith a plan with a successor to determine the nature and extent of phase-in, phase-out services required. The plan shall specify a training program and a date for transferring responsibilities for each division of work described in the plan, and shall be subject to the Contracting Officer’s approval. The Contractor shall provide sufficient experienced personnel during the phase-in, phase-out period to ensure that the services called for by this contract are maintained at the required level of proficiency.                                          (c) 						            The Contractor shall allow as many personnel as practicable to remain on the job to help the successor maintain the continuity and consistency of the services required by this contract. The Contractor also shall disclose necessary personnel records and allow the successor to conduct on-site interviews with these employees. If selected employees are agreeable to the change, the Contractor shall release them at a mutually agreeable date and negotiate transfer of their earned fringe benefits to the successor.                                          (d) 						            The Contractor shall be reimbursed for all reasonable phase-in, phase-out costs (*i.e.,* costs incurred within the agreed period after contract expiration that result from phase-in, phase-out operations) and a fee (profit) not to exceed a pro rata portion of the fee (profit) under this contract.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.237 [Reserved]
Exhibit 32.1

Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Financial Officer Pursuant to
18 U.S.C.ss.1350


      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, as the chief executive officer and chief financial officer,
respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, 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 results of operations of the
Company.




                                         /s/ C. E. PORTER
                                         -------------------------
                                         C. E. Porter
                                         Chief Executive Officer


                                         /s/ R. ALAN MILLER
                                         --------------------------
                                         R. Alan Miller
                                         Chief Financial Officer


Date:  August 13, 2004
Puget Sound

 ̈§¦5

Nisqual yl R

vi er

McAllister

Creek

Puget Sound

 ̈§¦5

Nisqual yl R

vi er

McAllister

Creek

Distribution of Invasive Reed 

Canary Grass, 1997

Figure 3.2-6

3-27

Source: USFWS, 2000; Ducks Unlimited, 1999; EDAW, 2002

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

P:\0e01401 Nisqually\GIS\mxd\Figure3.2-5.mxd

N

0 0.25 0.5 0.125 Miles

1:30,000

Legend

Approved Nisqually NWR Boundary

Dike

Seasonally Flooded Reed Canary Grass
**Exhibit 34.1**

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Board of Directors and ShareholderWashington Mutual Bank

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Servicer’s Report on Assessment of Compliance, that Long Beach Securities Corp. (“LBSC”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Washington Mutual Bank andsubsidiaries, complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) Regulation AB for the securitizations of pools of mortgage loans that were completed on or afterJanuary 1, 2006, and prior to January 1, 2007 for which LBSC performed servicing functions set forth in Item 1122(d) and that included one or more classes of publicly offered securities registered with the SEC pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the“Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006, excluding criteria 1122 (d)(1)(i)‐(3)(i)(B) and 1122 (d)(3)(i)(D)-(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by LBSC with respectto the Platform. Management is responsible for LBSC’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about LBSC’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, includedexamining, on a test basis, evidence about LBSC’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether LBSC performed those selected activities incompliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by LBSC during the period covered by thisreport and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each specific asset-backed transaction included in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurredprior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by LBSC during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide alegal determination on LBSC’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management’s assertion that LBSC complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

February 22, 2007
#### Mary F. Rogers, Respondent, *v.*Sarah James et al., Respondents, Edward F. James, Purchaser, etc., Appellant.

(Submitted June 19, 1884 ;

decided June 27, 1884.)

*K. R. Benn*for appellant.

*Will Man*for respondent.

Agree to affirm ; no opinion.

All concur.

Order affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Carlos Santiago, Respondent.

Order of Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 29, 1966, which granted defendant’s motion to suppress certain evidence, reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion remitted to' the court below for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. The order was granted upon the ground that the evidence in question was the fruit of certain statements obtained from defendant in violation of the rules enunciated in *Miranda*v. *Arizona*(384 U. S. 436). On this record, it is ouf opinion that the evidence was not the fruit of the statements obtained from defendant, but on the contrary was obtained independently of those statements and as a result of information received from the complainant. However, a further hearing should be had on the issues (a) whether the evidence in question was obtained by an illegal search and seizure and (b) whether defendant has standing to raise that objection, since those issues were neither reached, litigated, nor determined at the hearing which resulted in the order under review. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
47.303-9 F.o.b. vessel, port of shipment.       (a)                   *Explanation of delivery term.*"F.o.b. vessel, port shipment" means free of expense to the Government loaded, stowed, and trimmed on board the ocean vessel at the specified port of shipment.                                          (b)                   *Contractor responsibilities*. The contractor shall-                                                         (1)                                                                           (i) 										                    Pack and mark the shipment to comply with contract specifications; or                                                                              (ii) 										                    In the absence of specifications, prepare the shipment for ocean transportation in conformance with carrier requirements to protect the goods and to ensure assessment of the lowest applicable transportation charge;                                                                                                           (2)                                                                           (i) 										                    Deliver the shipment on board the ocean vessel in good order and condition on the date or within the period fixed; and                                                                              (ii) 										                    Pay and bear all charges incurred in placing the shipment actually on board;                                                                                                           (3) 								                Provide a clean ship’s receipt or on-board ocean bill of lading;                                                            (4) 								                Be responsible for any loss of and/or damage to the goods occurring before delivery of the shipment on board the ocean vessel; and                                                            (5) 								                At the Government’s request and expense, assist in obtaining the documents required for-                                                                           (i) 										                    Exportation; or                                                                              (ii) 										                    Importation at destination.                                                                                                                            (c)                   *Contract clause*. The contracting officer shall insert in solicitations and contracts the clause at 52.247-37, F.o.b. Vessel, Port of Shipment, when the delivery term is f.o.b. vessel, port of shipment.    **Parent topic:** 47.303 Standard delivery terms and contract clauses.
47.104-3 Cost-reimbursement contracts.       (a)                   49 U.S.C. 10721 and 1 3712 rates may be applied to shipments other than those made by the Government if the total benefit accrues to the Government, i.e., the Government shall pay the charges or directly and completely reimburse the party that initially bears the freight charges. Therefore, 49 U.S.C. 10721 and 1 3712 rates may be used for shipments moving on commercial bills of lading in cost reimbursement contracts under which the transportation costs are direct and allowable costs under the cost principles of part  31.                                          (b)                   49 U.S.C. 10721 and 1 3712 rates may be applied to the movement of household goods and personal effects of contractor employees who are relocated for the convenience and at the direction of the Government and whose total transportation costs are reimbursed by the Government.                                          (c) 						            The clause at 52.247-1, Commercial Bill of Lading Notations, will ensure that the Government receives the benefit of lower 49 U.S.C. 10721 and 1 3712 rates in cost-reimbursement contracts as described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.                                          (d) 						            Contracting officers shall-                                                         (1) 								                Include in contracts a statement requiring the contractor to use carriers that offer acceptable service at reduced rates if available; and                                                            (2) 								                Ensure that contractors receive the name and location of the transportation officer designated to furnish support and guidance when using Government rate tenders.                                                                             (e) 						            The transportation office shall-                                                         (1) 								                Advise and assist contracting officers and contractors; and                                                            (2) 								                Make available to contractors the names of carriers that provide service under 49 U.S.C. 10721 and 1 3712 rates, cite applicable rate tenders, and advise contractors of the statement that must be shown on the carrier’s commercial bill of lading (see the clause at 52.247-1, Commercial Bill of Lading Notations).    **Parent topic:** 47.104 Government rate tenders under sections 10721 and 13712 of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 10721 and 13712).
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:96-cr-00012-MP

JAMES WILEY NICHOLS,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 35, Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence by

James Wiley Nichols. The motion by Mr. Nichols is identical to the motion he made at doc. 33,

which was denied in the order at doc. 34. Mr. Nichols includes no basis for revisiting that

decision. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The motion to reconsider, doc. 35, is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of July, 2007

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:96-cr-00012-MP Document 36 Filed 07/18/07 Page 1 of 1
#### § 52.801 Product description.

Frozen red tart pitted cherries is the food prepared from properly matured cherries of the domestic (Prunus cerasus) red sour varietal group which have been washed, pitted, sorted, and properly drained; may be packed with or without a nutritive sweetened packing medium or any other substance permitted under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and are frozen and stored at temperatures necessary for the preservation of the product.
#### § 58.642 Quality control tests.

All mix ingredients shall be subject to inspection for quality and condition throughout each processing operation. Quality control tests shall be made on flow line samples as often as necessary to check the effectiveness of processing and sanitation and as an aid in correcting deficiencies. Routine analysis shall be made on raw materials and finished products to assure adequate composition, weight or volume control.
The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western

1

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3055

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Terry E. Savage-El, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: December 29, 1998

 Filed: January 4, 1999

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Terry E. Savage-El appeals the district court’s denial of his

1

motion for return of money the government had withdrawn from his prison account to

satisfy a fine. We conclude that denial of the motion was not erroneous, and we affirm

the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.