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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 3:20cr40/MCR

CHRISTOPHER BONES

 /

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge, to which there has been no timely objections, and subject to this Court’s

consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(3), the plea of

guilty of the Defendant, CHRISTOPHER BONES, to Count One of the Superseding

Indictment is hereby ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court for

sentencing as directed.

DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of February 2021.

 s/M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00040-MCR Document 246 Filed 02/26/21 Page 1 of 1
December28, 2014 Docket Management Facility Alan F. Wright 449 S. Skyview Drive Kalamazoo, Michigan 49009 e-mail: saraawright@aol.com

U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJerseyAvenue, SE West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 Washington, DC 20590 Subject: Comment on Docket No. FAA-2010-0134 Summary Notice No. PE-2014-139 To Whom It May Concern: . \ :.. ·,, , ...

As a pilotwith 53 years experience and 7,000 hours, Iwould like to comment on a petition for exemption submitted by Al's Aerial Spraying, LLC. The exemption asks for relieffrom 14 CFR 137.51(b) (4) (i) which requires that no person operating a single engine airplane, takeoffa loaded aircraft, or make a turnaround over a congested area. The petitioner, Al's Aerial Spraying, LLC asks to be allowed to use single engineturboprop powered AirTractor aircraftto takeoff and maketurnarounds over congested areas in a loaded configuration. I strongly supportthis petition. Documentation was submitted with the petition and is in the docket outlining the need forthis petition. This documentation was largely FAA publications, Pratt and Whitney Data and Advisory Circulars that prove thatthe single engine turboprop airplane is saferthat a multi-engine airplane in this flight regime. The Federal Aviation Regulations pertaining toAgricultureAircraft Operations were written in the 1960's, when the turboprop engine was a relatively newtechnology. These regulations do not reflect the significant evolution of purpose builit agricultural application aircraft, turbo-prop engines, agricultural aviation technology, or enhanced pilottraining. It is my reasoned opinion that granting this petition will not adversely affect safety offlight and will in fact provide an even higher level ofsafety.
Thank you forthe opportunity to comment on this petition for exemption.



# 4-~~·"'

**-_--.-~--** Alan Wright ATP#1543005
§ 70.91 Issuance. ( a ) *Resident grading basis.* Certificates will be issued only upon a request therefor by the applicant or the AMS. When requested, a grader shall issue a certificate covering product graded by such grader. In addition, a grader may issue a grading certificate covering product graded in whole or in part by another grader when the grader has knowledge that the product is eligible for certification based on personal examination of the product or official grading records.
( b ) *Other than resident grading.* Each grader shall, in person or by an authorized agent, issue a grading certificate covering each product graded by such grader. A grader's name may be signed on a grading certificate by a person other than the grader if such person has been designated as the authorized agent of such grader by the national supervisor: *Provided*, That the certificate is prepared from an official memorandum of grading signed by the grader: *And provided further*, That a notarized power of attorney authorizing such signature has been issued to such person by the grader and is on file in the office of grading. In such case, the authorized agent shall sign both the agents name and the grader's name, e.g., “John Doe by Mary Roe.”
[71 FR 42014, July 24, 2006]
CERTIFICATION 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  Quarterly  Report of The Saint James Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").  I, Bruce
Cosgrove,  President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
company,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 USC  Section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

        (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/ Bruce Cosgrove
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Bruce Cosgrove, President, Chief
                                         Executive Officer & Chief Financial
                                         Officer

Dated: January __, 2008
# L_2014089EN.01004301.xml

| 25.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 89/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 89/43

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 300/2014

of 24 March 2014

withdrawing the suspension of submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The submission of applications for import licences concerning order number 09.4321 was suspended as from 27 September 2013 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 931/2013 of 26 September 2013 fixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 8 to 14 September 2013 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences (3), in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The submission of applications for import licences concerning order number 09.4321 was suspended as from 27 September 2013 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 931/2013 of 26 September 2013 fixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 8 to 14 September 2013 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences (3), in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009.

| (2) | Following notifications on unused and/or partly used licences, quantities became available again for this order number. The suspension of applications should therefore be withdrawn, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Following notifications on unused and/or partly used licences, quantities became available again for this order number. The suspension of applications should therefore be withdrawn,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The suspension of submission of applications for import licences for order number 09.4321 as from 27 September 2013 laid down by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 931/2013 is withdrawn.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 24 March 2014.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Jerzy PLEWA

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 254, 26.9.2009, p. 82.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 255, 27.9.2013, p. 11.

3

---
#### § 634.10 Applicability.

RCWP is applicable in project areas that meet the criteria for eligibility contained in § 634.12 and are authorized for funding by the Administrator, NRCS.
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 17

- 00332

- CV

KATRINA AHRENS

, Appellant

v.

DALLAS POLICE ASSOCI ATION, DPA'S

ASSIST THE OFFICER F OUNDATION, INC.,

FREDERICK FRAZIER, C ITY OF DALLAS,

AND ZAC PRODUCTS II, LLC

, Appellee s

From the 18th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC

- C201700365

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Katrina Ahrens appeal ed the trial court’s Order Granting Emergency Motion for

Protective Order signed on October 3, 2017, regarding s ealing or barring the disclosure

of the depositions of a defendant and a non

- party in the underlying case. The trial court

subsequently recused itself , and the matter was transferred to a new trial court. In orders

issued August 22, 2018 and October 17, 2018, we abated this appeal for the new trial

court’s consideration of the issues decided by the former trial court’s October 3, 2017Ahrens v. Dallas Police Association, et al. Page 2

order.

By a Joi nt Status Report, w e have been informed by the parties that they have

resolved the issues presented in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is reinstated and

dismissed as moot.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Dav is, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal reinstated and dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed November 7 , 2018

[CV06]
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 )

PETITION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE UNITED STATES

MARSHAL TO RELEASE CUSTODY OF PRISONER

Comes now the United States of America, by and through Leura G. Canary, United States

Attorney and the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, both for the Middle District of

Alabama, and moves this Honorable Court for an order directing the United States Marshal, Middle

District of Alabama, to release from their custody James Calvin Talley, into the custody of Todd

Mims, DEA, and/or Doug Walters, DEA, from 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. We further move the Court to enter an order directing Todd Mims, DEA, and/or

Doug Walters, DEA, to return said prisoner into the custody of the United States Marshals Service

when they have finished with him.

Respectfully submitted this the 26th of April, 2007.

LEURA G. CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ A. Clark Morris

A. CLARK MORRIS

Assistant United States Attorney

Post Office Box 197

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0197

334.223.7280

334.223.7135 fax

clark.morris@usdoj.gov

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 217 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 1 of 2
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 )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 26, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of

the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all attorneys on

record.

LEURA G. CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ A. Clark Morris

A. CLARK MORRIS

Assistant United States Attorney

Post Office Box 197

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0197

334.223.7280

334.223.7135 fax

clark.morris@usdoj.gov

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 217 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 2 of 2
19.502-2 Total small business	set-asides.       (a) 						            Before setting aside an acquisition	under this paragraph, refer to 19.203(b). Each acquisition of supplies	or services that has an anticipated dollar value above the micro-purchase	threshold, but not over the simplified acquisition threshold, shall be	set aside for small business unless the contracting officer determines	there is not a reasonable expectation of obtaining offers from two	or more responsible small business concerns that are competitive	in terms of fair market prices, quality, and delivery. If the	contracting officer receives only one acceptable offer from a responsible	small business concern in response to a set-aside, the contracting	officer should make an award to that firm. If the contracting officer	receives no acceptable offers from responsible small business concerns,	the set-aside shall be withdrawn and the requirement, if still valid,	shall be resolicited on an unrestricted basis. The small business	set-aside does not preclude the award of a contract as described	in 19.203.                                          (b) 						            Before	setting aside an acquisition under this paragraph, refer to 19.203(c). The contracting	officer shall set aside any acquisition over the simplified acquisition	threshold for small business participation when there is a	reasonable expectation that-                                                         (1) 								                Offers will	be obtained from at least two responsible small business concerns;	and                                                            (2) 								                Award will	be made at fair market prices. Total small business set-asides shall	not be made unless such a reasonable expectation exists (see 19.502-3 for partial set-asides).	Although past acquisition history and market research of an item or	similar items are always important, these are not the only factors	to be considered in determining whether a reasonable expectation	exists. In making research and development small business set-asides,	there must also be a reasonable expectation of obtaining from small	businesses the best scientific and technological sources consistent	with the demands of the proposed acquisition for the best mix of	cost, performances, and schedules.    **Parent topic:** 19.502 Setting aside acquisitions.
# C_2014289EN.01000101.xml

| 29.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/1

---

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION

of 18 February 2014

concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (eighth EDF) for the financial year 2012

2014/C 289/01

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to the fourth ACP-EEC Convention, signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989 (1) and amended by the Agreement signed in Mauritius on 4 November 1995 (2),

1

2

Having regard to the Internal Agreement between the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on the financing and administration of the Community aid under the Second Financial Protocol to the fourth ACP-EC Convention (3) (the ‘Internal Agreement’) setting up, amongst others, the eighth European Development Fund (eighth EDF), and in particular Article 33(3) thereof,

3

Having regard to the Financial Regulation of 16 June 1998 applicable to development finance cooperation under the fourth ACP-EC Convention (4), and in particular Articles 66 to 74 thereof,

4

Having examined the revenue and expenditure account and the balance sheet relating to the operations of the eighth EDF as at 31 December 2012, and the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the activities funded by the 8th, 9th and 10th European Development Funds (EDFs) (5), concerning the financial year 2012, together with the Commission’s replies contained in that Annual Report,

5

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 33(3) of the Internal Agreement, the discharge for the financial management of the eighth EDF is to be given to the Commission by the European Parliament on the recommendation of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 33(3) of the Internal Agreement, the discharge for the financial management of the eighth EDF is to be given to the Commission by the European Parliament on the recommendation of the Council.

| (2) | The overall implementation by the Commission of the operations of the eighth EDF during the financial year 2012 has been satisfactory, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The overall implementation by the Commission of the operations of the eighth EDF during the financial year 2012 has been satisfactory,

HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the European Parliament give the Commission a discharge in respect of the implementation of the operations of the eighth EDF for the financial year 2012.

Done at Brussels, 18 February 2014.

For the Council

The President

G. STOURNARAS

---

(1)  OJ L 229, 17.8.1991, p. 3.

1

(2)  OJ L 156, 29.5.1998, p. 3.

2

(3)  OJ L 156, 29.5.1998, p. 108.

3

(4)  OJ L 191, 7.7.1998, p. 53.

4

(5)  OJ C 331, 14.11.2013, p. 261.

5

---
§ 635.5 Forms of relief. ( a ) The Chief may authorize a participant in a covered program to: ( 1 ) Retain payments or other benefits received under the covered program;
( 2 ) Continue to receive payments and other benefits under the covered program;
( 3 ) Continue to participate, in whole or in part, under any contract executed under the covered program;
( 4 ) Re-enroll all or part of the land covered by the program; and
( 5 ) Receive such other equitable relief as determined to be appropriate.
( b ) As a condition of receiving relief under this part, the participant may be required to remedy their failure to meet the program requirement or mitigate its effects.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:00cr15 – SPM 

WILLIAM H. BLACK,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS

Pending before the Court is Defendant William H. Black’s Writ of Error

Coram Nobis, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Doc. 1296. Coram nobis relief

is appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances to correct an error of

fundamental character when there is no other relief available and a valid reason

for not pursing relief earlier. Alikhani v. United States, 200 F.3d 732, 734 (11th

Cir. 2000). The restitution issue Black raises could have been pursued on direct

appeal. The claims of ineffective assistance of counsel could have been pursued

in a motion to vacate under § 2255. Black has not presented a sound reason for

his failure to pursue these issues earlier and the issues are not of a fundamental
Page 2 of 2

character so as to warrant coram nobis relief. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: Defendant William H. Black’s Writ of Error

Coram Nobis, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (doc. 1296) is denied. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of August, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

CASE NO.: 1:00cr15-SPM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1997, AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,143,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,800
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       6,096,300
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,203,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,207,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          448,800
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,207,700
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               738,100
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  444,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (48,400)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,400
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                338,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            338,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   338,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    11.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 65.225 Produced.

*Produced* in the case of a perishable agricultural commodity, peanuts, ginseng, pecans, and macadamia nuts means harvested.
Case 1:20-cr-00010-AW-GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/19/20 Page 1 of 1
Case 5:03-cr-00054-MCR-MD Document 179 Filed 03/03/08 Page 1 of 1