alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 2, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-51134 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RODOLFO VALENZUELA-AVITIA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-1089-ALL-FM

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rodolfo Valenzuela-Avitia was convicted following pleading guilty to one count of illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Valenzuela-Avitia has filed an unopposed motion to remand his case for re-sentencing, stating that both “parties agree that re-sentencing is appropriate and just” in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).Valenzuela-Avitia’s unopposed motion to remand for resentencing in Booker is GRANTED, and the Government’s previouslyNo. 04-51134 -2- filed motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. The Government’s request for an extension of time in which to file its brief is DENIED AS MOOT. We VACATE the district court’s sentence and REMAND for re-sentencing in accordance with Booker
. MOTION TO REMAND GRANTED; SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE DENIED; MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING BRIEF DENIED AS MOOT; VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RE-SENTENCING.
Exhibit
10.3

       

      VirtualScopics,
Inc. 2009 Bonus Plan

       

      On
January 27, 2009, the Registrant’s Compensation Committee approved the terms of
the Registrant’s 2009 Bonus Plan (“Plan”). The Plan covers the Registrant’s
Chief Executive Officer, management employees including the Chief Business and
Financial Officer, and other employees.

      


      The Plan
provides performance criteria based upon the Registrant meeting certain
financial and operational targets in the 2009 fiscal year, and require the
Registrant to achieve improved financial performance over fiscal
2008.  If the Registrant’s performance meets or exceeds the staged
targets in the Plan, the participating executive may receive cash incentive
bonus payments equal to a percentage of the executive’s eligible base
pay.  Amounts may be further adjusted by the Compensation Committee
for exceptional individual performance.  The bonus percentage range is
0% to 30% of eligible base pay for the chief executive officer, and 0% to 22%
for the chief business and financial officer.  The executive officers
are not eligible for a bonus unless the Registrant meets the initial performance
thresholds.  The Plan also includes a bonus pool to employees other
than the executive officers.
EXHIBIT 32.2






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE






I, George Brown, the Chief Financial Officer of AlphaMetrix, LLC, the Sponsor of AlphaMetrix Managed Futures LLC (Aspect Series) (the “Series”), certify that (i) the Annual Report of the Series on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Series.






Date: March 31, 2010













By:  /s/ George Brown


George Brown


Chief Financial Officer


AlphaMetrix, LLC
1725
                Eye Street, NW
              Suite
                600
              Washington,
                DC 20006
              TEL
                (202) 336-7700
              TOLL
                (800) 955-9622
              FAX
                (202) 336-7622


March
      7,
      2007





LaSalle - Asset
      Backed Securities Trust Group


135
      South
      LaSalle Street, Suite 1635


Chicago,
      IL 60603





RE:
      Annual Statement as to Compliance


CSFB
      Series 2006 C4





Dear
      Sir/Madam:





In
      accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement herewith is the Officer's
      Certificate.





a.
      A
      review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding calendar
      year and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been
      made under such officer's supervision.





b.
      To the
      best of my knowledge, based on these reviews, the Master Sevicer has fulfilled
      all obligations under this agreement in all material respects throughout the
      year.





c.
      We
      have received no notice regarding the qualification, or challenging the status,
      of the Upper-Tier REMIC, the Lower-Tier REMIC as a REMIC or the Grantor Trust
      as
      a grantor trust from the IRS or any other governmental agency or
      body.





Please
      note that the annual financial statement will be sent under separate cover
      on or
      before March 31, 2007.





Sincerely,




/s/
      Michelle Connelly




Michelle
      Connelly


Senior
      Vice President, Investor Compliance


NCB


NCB,
      FSB




www.ncb.coop
            Banking
                & Financial Services
              Cooperative
                Expansion
              Economic
                Development
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 5:03cr52/MCR

 5:03cr53/MCR

JESSE SMITH

 /

ORDER REGARDING JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY FOR RESTITUTION

After Defendant Jesse Smith was sentenced and ordered to pay restitution in the

amount of $3,015.00 to the Internal Revenue Service, Defendant Madeline Stuckey, case

number 5:03cr53/MCR, was ordered to pay the same restitution obligation jointly and

severally with Defendant Smith in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3664(h). As a result,

Defendant Smith is still responsible for payment of restitution until the entire $3,015.00 is

paid, but payments made by Defendant Stuckey will be credited toward the restitution

obligation.

SO ORDERED this 27th day of May, 2005.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:03-cr-00053-MCR Document 86 Filed 05/31/05 Page 1 of 1
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Cooperative ProgramsDisabilitiesEarly InterventionEducational LegislationEducational StrategiesIndividualized Family Service PlansPreschool EducationProgram Development

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Identifiers - Laws, Policies, & Programs:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
52.225-16 [Reserved]

Parent topic: 52.225 [Reserved]
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30172
TO G A SO CI ET Y I N C, do i ng bus i ne s s a s K r e w e o f Al ad di n P l a i n ti ff

- A p p ell ee -C ross -A p p ell a n t v. NE W E L L NO R MAN D, J e f fe r s o n P a r i s h S h e r i f f; J E F F E R S ON P A R I S H D efen da n t s - A pp el l an t s- C ross - A pp el l ees

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rtf or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof L ou i si an a, N ew O rl ean s
B e fo r e J O L L Y , P R A D O , a n d S O U T H W IC K , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: * A F F IR M E D
. S ee5 T H C IR . R
. 47. 6. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 6, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

CINDY HARRISON as legal

Guardian of ROBERT GENE WELLS1,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 5:21-cv-19-TKW-MJF

TOMMY FORD, in his official capacity as

SHERIFF of BAY COUNTY, and RICK ANGLIN,

In his supervisor capacity

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF INTENT TO RELY ON EXHIBITS FOR DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES

Defendants, Tommy Ford, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Bay County, 

Florida, and Rick Anglin, in his supervisory capacity, by and through their 

undersigned counsel hereby file exhibits in support of Defendants’ Motion for 

Attorney and Expert Witness Fees.

Exhibit 1 – Defendants’ Rule 11, served April 26, 20202

Exhibit 2 – Rule 11 Service email

1 ECF 73 substituted Cindy Harrison as Plaintiff’s Guardian.

2 Documents referenced in Defendants’ Rule 11 have since been filed with this court and can be found at ECF 61-45

(Anglin) and ECF 61-51 (Burkett.)

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 76 Filed 08/29/22 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

DATED this 29th day of August 2022.

WARNER LAW FIRM, P. A.

/s/ Jennifer Hawkins

JENNIFER HAWKINS

Florida Bar No. 17694

501 W. 11th St. Suite A

Panama City, FL 32401

Phone No. (850) 784-7772

pleadings@warnerlaw.us

Counsel for Defendants 

Ford and Anglin

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was filed via CM/ECF 

this 29th day of August 2022, which will send notice to all counsel of record. 

/s/ Jennifer Hawkins

JENNIFER HAWKINS

Florida Bar No. 17694

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 76 Filed 08/29/22 Page 2 of 2
1

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER JON PERGROSSI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20cv183-MW/GRJ

DEPARTMENT OF

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Defendant.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation. ECF No. 5. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “The Complaint, ECF No. 1, is 

DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This 

dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to file a subsequent FTCA case 

Case 1:20-cv-00183-MW-GRJ Document 8 Filed 09/24/20 Page 1 of 2
2

pertaining to his medical care, to the extent Plaintiff believes he can allege sufficient 

facts to support a claim.” The Clerk shall also close the file.

SO ORDERED on September 24, 2020.

s/ MARK E. WALKER

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00183-MW-GRJ Document 8 Filed 09/24/20 Page 2 of 2
§ 718.7 Furnishing maps. ( a ) A reasonable number, as determined by FSA, of reproductions of photographs, mosaic maps, and other maps will be made available to the owner of a farm, an insurance company reinsured by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), or a private party contractor performing official duties on behalf of FSA, CCC, and other USDA agencies.
( b ) For all others, reproductions will be made available at the rate FSA determines will cover the cost of making such items available.
[80 FR 41994, July 16, 2015]
Exhibit 32(ii)

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO U.S.C. SECTION 1350

    In connection with the Form 10-K of National Bankshares, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2004, I, J. Robert Buchanan, Treasurer of National
Bankshares, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge and belief that:

(1)      such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, fully complies
         with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securties Act of
         1934; and

(2)      the information contained in such Form 10-K for the year ended
         December 31, 2004, fairly presents in all material respects, the
         financial condition and results of operations of National Bankshares,
         Inc.




 /s/ J. ROBERT BUCHANAN
--------------------------------
J. Robert Buchanan
Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)
EX-35 (f)
(logo) WELLS FARGO


Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


March 24, 2007


Banc of America Funding Corporation
214 North Tyron Street
Charlotte, NC 28255


RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for Banc of America Funding 2006-H Trust


Per Section 3.20 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 09/29/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Securities Administrator),
hereby certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:

     (a)     a review of the activities of such party during the preceding
             calendar year or portion thereof and of performance of such party
             under this Agreement has been made under such officers' supervision
             and

     (b)     to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review,
             such party has fulfilled all of its obligations under this
             Agreement in all material respects throughout such year, or, if
             there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any
             material respect, specifying each such failure known to such
             officer and the nature and status thereof.


Certified By:
/s/ Barry Akers
Barry Akers
Vice President


Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary
52.228-13 Alternative Payment Protections.       As prescribed in 28.102-3(b), insert the following clause:          Alternative Payment Protections (July 2000)                                       (a) The Contractor shall submit one of the following payment protections:                ________________________________________________________________________________                                          (b) The amount of the payment protection shall be 100 percent of the contract price.                                          (c) The submission of the payment protection is required within _________ days of contract award.                                          (d) The payment protection shall provide protection for the full contract performance period plus a one-year period.                                          (e) Except for escrow agreements and payment bonds, which provide their own protection procedures, the Contracting Officer is authorized to access funds under the payment protection when it has been alleged in writing by a supplier of labor or material that a nonpayment has occurred, and to withhold such funds pending resolution by administrative or judicial proceedings or mutual agreement of the parties.                                          (f) When a tripartite escrow agreement is used, the Contractor shall utilize only suppliers of labor and material that signed the escrow agreement.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.228 [Reserved]
```

[107th Congress Public Law 290]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ290.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 2051]]

Public Law 107-290
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To amend the District of Columbia Retirement Protection Act of 1997 to 
    permit the Secretary of the Treasury to use estimated amounts in 
   determining the service longevity component of the Federal benefit 
 payment required to be paid under such Act to certain retirees of the 
Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia. <<NOTE: Nov. 
                        7, 2002 -  [H.R. 5205]>> 

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

SECTION 1. PERMITTING USE OF ESTIMATED AMOUNTS IN DETERMINING SERVICE 
            LONGEVITY COMPONENT OF FEDERAL BENEFIT PAYMENTS TO 
            METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT RETIREES.

    Section 11012(e) of the District of Columbia Retirement Protection 
Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33; sec. 1-803.02(e), D.C. Official Code) is 
amended by adding at the end the following: ``The Secretary of the 
Treasury is authorized to estimate the additional compensation for 
service longevity for purposes of determining the amount of a Federal 
benefit payment for annuitants who retire on or after August 29, 1972, 
and on or before December 31, 2001, and to make Federal benefit payments 
based upon such estimates.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by section 1 shall take effect as if included in 
the enactment of title IX of division A of the Miscellaneous 
Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted by reference in section 1(a)(4) of 
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001).

    Approved November 7, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5205:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
            Oct. 10, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 17, considered and passed Seante.

                                  <all>
```
Case 3:20-cr-00095-MCR Document 43 Filed 07/20/21 Page 1 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00095-MCR Document 43 Filed 07/20/21 Page 2 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00095-MCR Document 43 Filed 07/20/21 Page 3 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00095-MCR Document 43 Filed 07/20/21 Page 4 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00095-MCR Document 43 Filed 07/20/21 Page 5 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00095-MCR Document 43 Filed 07/20/21 Page 6 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00095-MCR Document 43 Filed 07/20/21 Page 7 of 7
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.: 4:02cr3-SPM

DAVID JUNIOR UPSHAW

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant David Junior Upshaw’s

letter (doc. 37) dated August 22, 2008, which has been construed by the clerk as

a second motion to reduce sentence under the crack cocaine amendments to the

sentencing guidelines. For the following reasons, the motion will be denied.

1. This Court has already issued an order (doc. 35) reducing

Defendant’s sentence from 360 months to 329 months based on the crack

cocaine amendments to the sentencing guidelines. This sentence consists of a

269 month sentence on Counts 1 and 5, and a consecutive 60 month sentence

on Count 4. There is no basis to order a further reduction.

2. Defendant is correct that his previous sentence was based on an

offense level of 35 at criminal history VI. Although the Court incorrectly stated in

its order that the total offense level was 38, the order stated the correct guideline

Case 4:02-cr-00003-MW-CAS Document 38 Filed 09/23/08 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

CASE NO.: 4:02cr3-SPM

range, which was 292 to 365 months. In applying the crack cocaine amendment,

the Court again incorrectly stated the total offense level (should have been 34

instead of 37), but relied on the appropriate guideline range of 262 to 327. 

Defendant takes the position that under the amended guidelines he should have

been sentenced at a total offense level of 33. He fails to take into account his

qualification as a career offender under Chapter Four, which prevents his base

offense level from falling below 37. With a 3-point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility his total offense level falls to 34, and the guideline range is 262 to

327 months. The sentence reduction the Court granted Defendant is based on

this amended guideline range, which was properly calculated. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s second motion to reduce

sentence under the crack cocaine amendments to the sentencing guidelines

(doc. 37) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cr-00003-MW-CAS Document 38 Filed 09/23/08 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOHN L. NORMAN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv437-MW/MAF

WARDEN MADDOX, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and 

Recommendation, ECF No. 55, and has also reviewed de novo Defendants’

objections, ECF No. 57. Defendants take issue with the Magistrate Judge’s 

application of law with respect to Defendants’ exhaustion arguments. However, this 

Court finds the Magistrate Judge did not clearly err in finding that Plaintiff was not 

required to proceed to the second and third step of Defendant’s grievance procedures 

and that Defendant waived its timeliness argument. See, e.g., Whatley v. Smith, 898 

F.3d 1072, 1085 n.60 (11th Cir. 2018) (“A grievance can be exhausted without being 

appealed all the way through the grievance resolution process.”); see also Q.F. v. 

Daniel, 768 F. App’x 935 (11th Cir. 2019) (discussing Whatley and affirming denial 
2

of motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to the 

PLRA). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 55, is accepted and adopted, over 

the Defendants’ objections, as this Court’s opinion. Defendants’ motions to dismiss, 

ECF Nos. 44 and 48, are DENIED. This case is remanded to the Magistrate Judge 

for further proceedings. 

SO ORDERED on May 26, 2021.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge
52.232-14 Notice of Availability of Progress

Payments Exclusively for Small Business

Concerns.

As prescribed in 32.502-3(b)(2), insert the following provision in invitations for bids if it is

anticipated that (a) both small business concerns and others may submit bids in response to the

same invitation and (b) only the small business bidders would need progress payments:

Notice of Availability of Progress Payments Exclusively for Small Business Concerns (Apr 1984)

The Progress Payments clause will be available only to small business concerns. Any bid conditioned

upon inclusion of a progress payment clause in the resulting contract will be rejected as

nonresponsive if the bidder is not a small business concern.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.232 [Reserved]
PUBLIC LAW 108–379—OCT. 30, 2004 118 STAT. 2209

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2984:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

Oct. 5, considered and passed House.

Oct. 11, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–379

108th Congress

An Act

To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to remove the requirement that processors be members of an agency administering a marketing order applicable

to pears.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PEAR MARKETING ORDERS.

Section 8c(7)(C) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C.

608c(7)(C)), reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is amended in the last sentence—

(1) by striking ‘‘or pears’’; and

(2) by striking ‘‘: Provided,’’ and all that follows through

‘‘be equal’’.

Approved October 30, 2004.

Oct. 30, 2004

[H.R. 2984]
#### §§ 4288.8-4288.9 [Reserved]