alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

vs. Case No. 5:95cr5029/LAC/GRJ

 5:11cv149/LAC/GRJ

ELIAS RAYAS MEJIA,

O R D E R

This cause comes onfor consideration upon the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation dated May 24, 2011. The plaintiff has been furnished a copy of the

report and recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), but no objections have

been filed.

Having considered the report and recommendation, I have determined that the

report and recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence (doc 319) is

DENIED.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

4. The clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 29 day of June, 2011. th

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:95-cr-05029-LC-GRJ Document 321 Filed 06/29/11 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 762
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 762 appear at 72 FR 63297, Nov. 8, 2007.

§ 762.129 Percent of guarantee and maximum loss. ( a ) *Percent of guarantee.* The percent of guarantee will not exceed 90 percent based on the credit risk to the lender and the Agency both before and after the transaction. The Agency will determine the percentage of guarantee. See paragraph (b) of this section for exceptions.
( b ) *Exceptions.* The guarantee will be determined by the Agency except: ( 1 ) For OLs and FOs, the guarantee will be issued at 95 percent when: ( i ) The sole purpose of a guaranteed FO or OL is to refinance an Agency direct farm loan and when only a portion of the loan is used to refinance a direct Agency loan, a weighted percentage of a guarantee will be provided;
( ii ) The purpose of a guaranteed FO is to participate in the down payment loan program;
( iii ) A guaranteed OL is made to a farmer who is participating in the Agency's down payment loan program. The guaranteed OL must be made during the period that a borrower has the down payment loan outstanding;
( iv ) A guaranteed OL is made to a farmer whose farm land is subject to the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe and whose loan is secured by one or more security instruments that are subject to the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe;
( v ) A guaranteed FO or OL is made to a qualified socially disadvantaged farmer; or
( vi ) A guaranteed FO or OL is made to a qualified beginning farmer.
( 2 ) For CLs, the guarantee will be issued at 80 percent; however, the guarantee will be issued at 90 percent if: ( i ) The applicant is a qualified socially disadvantaged farmer; or
( ii ) The applicant is a qualified beginning farmer.
( c ) *CLP and PLP guarantees.* All guarantees issued to CLP or PLP lenders will not be less than 80 percent.
( d ) *Maximum loss.* The maximum amount the Agency will pay the lender under the loan guarantee will be any loss sustained by such lender on the guaranteed portion including: ( 1 ) The pro rata share of principal and interest indebtedness as evidenced by the note or by assumption agreement;
( 2 ) Any loan subsidy due and owing;
( 3 ) The pro rata share of principal and interest indebtedness on secured protective and emergency advances made in accordance with this subpart; and
( 4 ) Principal and interest indebtedness on recapture debt pursuant to a shared appreciation agreement. Provided that the lender has paid the Agency its pro rata share of the recapture amount due.
[64 FR 7378, Feb. 12, 1999, as amended at 68 FR 7695, Feb. 18, 2003; 72 FR 63297, Nov. 8, 2007; 75 FR 54014, Sept. 3, 2010; 79 FR 78693, Dec. 31, 2014; 86 FR 43391, Aug. 9, 2021 ; 87 FR 13123, Mar. 9, 2022]
#### LaSalle Hotel Lessee, Inc., Appellant, v Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., Respondent.

[816 NYS2d 347]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammer*465man, J.H.O.), entered July 7, 2005, which dismissed the complaint upon the prior grant of defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff failed to plead sufficiently *(see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg,*43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]) factual allegations of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The plain, unambiguous language of the management agreement, when read as a whole *(see Brooke Group v JCH Syndicate 488,*87 NY2d 530 [1996]), delegates to defendant the sole right to manage the hotel, including the right to establish employee wages and benefits, with no reservation for plaintiff to approve or disapprove that decision. The cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, based on the same allegations as for breach of contract, was also properly dismissed *(see Layden v Boccio,*253 AD2d 540 [1998]). And since no breach occurred, there can be no claim for declaratory judgment.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
# C_2014033EN.01000401.xml

| 5.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 33/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33/4

---

COMMISSION DECISION

COMMISSION DECISION

of 3 February 2014

designating the sites awarded the European Heritage Label in 2013

2014/C 33/04

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Decision No 1194/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 establishing a European Union action for the European Heritage Label (1), and in particular Article 14(1) thereof,

1

Whereas:

| (1) | The European panel transmitted on 28 November 2013 its report regarding the selection process of sites for the attribution of the European Heritage Label in 2013 and, taking into account its recommendations, the Commission should designate the sites to be awarded the label. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The European panel transmitted on 28 November 2013 its report regarding the selection process of sites for the attribution of the European Heritage Label in 2013 and, taking into account its recommendations, the Commission should designate the sites to be awarded the label.

| (2) | In accordance with Article 15 of Decision No 1194/2011/EU, each site awarded the label should be monitored on a regular basis in order to ensure that it continues to meet the criteria and that it respects the project and work plan submitted in its application for the selection, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In accordance with Article 15 of Decision No 1194/2011/EU, each site awarded the label should be monitored on a regular basis in order to ensure that it continues to meet the criteria and that it respects the project and work plan submitted in its application for the selection,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The European Heritage Label is awarded to the archaeological site of Carnuntum (Austria), the Great Guild Hall-Estonian History Museum (Estonia), Camp Westerbork (the Netherlands) and the Peace Palace (the Netherlands).

Done at Brussels, 3 February 2014.

For the Commission

Androulla VASSILIOU

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  OJ L 303, 22.11.2011, p. 1.

1

---
#### § 550.120 Press releases.

Press releases or other forms of public notification for a broad public audience will be submitted to the REE Agency for review, prior to release to the public. The REE Agency will be given the opportunity to review, in advance, all written press releases and any other written information (including web content postings) to be released to the public by the Cooperator, and require changes as deemed necessary, if the material mentions by name the REE Agency, or the USDA, or any REE or USDA employee or research unit or location.
Exhibit















Exhibit 10.20        


SCHEDULE I
CHANGE OF CONTROL SEVERANCE PLAN PARTICIPANTS


	
		
	Benefit Level1 - 3

	Baxter, Warner L.
	Mark, Richard J.

	Diya, Fadi M.
	Moehn, Michael L.

	Lyons, Martin J.
	Nelson, Gregory L.

	Benefit Level - 2

	Steinke, Bruce A.
	 

	Benefit Level - 1

	 
	 














































____________________
1 Benefit Levels are defined as a payment amount equal to a cash severance multiple of base pay, target short-term incentive award, short-term incentive award in year of termination (prorated at target), the actuarial equivalent of the benefit under the qualified defined benefit retirement plan and any excess or supplemental retirement plan.
• RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 178

Petroleum Refining Process Wastes -- Leachate Exemption

64 FR 6806

February 11, 1999

(RCRA Cluster IX, HSWA)

SPA 20

•

•

t

t

t

t

t

STATEANALOG IS:

FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FEDERAL RCRAerrATION ANALOGOUS STATECITATION

WAC tass MORE 173-303- EQUIV· BROADER STRJN· STRJN· ALENT GENT GENT IN SCOPE

PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

SUBPART A - GENERAL

EXCLUSIONS

add new paragraph;

leachate or 'gas

condensate collected

from landfills where 261.4(b)(15) intro 071(3)(kk) X

certain solid wastes

previously disposed,

provided:

solid wastes disposed

meet one or more

listing descriptions for

KI69-KI72 if wastes 261.4(b)(l5)(i) 071(3)(kk)(i) X had been generated

after effective date of

listing (February 8,

1999);

solid wastes in

261.4(b)(15)(i) were

disposed prior to 261.4(b)(15)(ii) 071(3)(kk)(ii) X

effective date of

listing;

leachate or gas

condensate do not

exhibit any

characteristic of 261.4(b)(15)(iii) 071 (3)(kk)(iii) X hazardous waste nor

are derived from any

other listed hazardous

waste;

discharge of leachate 261.4(b)(15)(iv) 071 (3)(kk)(iv) X

February 11, 1999 - Page 1 of 2 CL 178.wp - 5(24199

Printed: 12119101
SPA 20

o

-- STATEANALOG IS: (

'--.

FEDERALRCRA CITATION ANALOGOUS STATECITATION FEDERALREQUIREMENTS WAC LESS MORE 173-303- EQUIV- STRIN- STRIN- BROADER

ALENT GENT GENT INSCOPE

or gas condensate,

including transfer

from the landfill to a

POTW by truck, rail

or dedicated pipe, is

subject to 307(b) or

4020fCWA

after February 13,

2001, leachate or gas

condensate will no

longer be exempt if

stored or managed in

surface impoundment 261.4(b)(15)(v) 071 (3)(kk)(v) X prior to discharge;

exception ifsurface

impoundment is used

to temporarily store in

response to an

emergency

t

()

February 11, 1999 - Page 2 of 2 CL 178.wp - 5124199

Printed: 12119/01
p.1 

OAR Box 1147 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

195) IV-E-69 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:57 PM Sheet 195 of 242 
P.2 

i -tm \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

SEP 2 2 I988 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATKX* 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Phone Conversation With Mr. Scott York of NHTSA 

FROM: 

TO: 

John F. Anderson, Senior Project Manager 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

Public Docket A-87-11 

'.yf^f^--m. 

On September 12, 1988 I had a conversation with Mr. Scott 

York of NHTSA concerning the NHTSA evaluation of the API 

onboard test car. Mr. York described problems which were 

encountered with both fill quality and driveability. Fill 

quality was affected by the occurrence of premature shutoffs on 

several refueling-s. Driveability problems occurred on some 

occasions for the period immediately following the fillup. Mr. 

York indicated that the results of the NHTSA evaluation were 

being documented- in a letter to API and that a copy of the 

letter would be sent to EPA. 

• \0V--' ' ...-••; •
DISCRETIONARY APPEALS ALLOWED

98-1099.

#### Collins v. Down River Specialties, Inc.

Cuyahoga App. No. 70840. Discretionary appeal allowed; *sua sponte,*cause consolidated with 98-1107, *infra.*

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18U.S.C SECTION 1350)**

 

The undersigned, as theChief Executive Officer of Video Display Corporation, certifies that, to thebest of his knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended May 31 (the “Report”), which accompanies this certification,fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofVideo Display Corporation at the dates and for the periods indicated. Theforegoing certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any otherpurpose.

 
|   | This 14th  day of July, 2004 | /s/ Ronald D. Ordway |   |
|--------|------------------------------|----------------------|--------|
|   | Ronald D. Ordway             |
|   | Chief Executive Officer      |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section906, has been provided to Video Display Corporation and will be retained byVideo Display Corporation and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>

This schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from MCCOMBS
REALTY  PARTNERS 2000 Third  Quarter  10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-QSB filing.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                               0000759198
<NAME>                              MCCOMBS REALTY PARTNERS
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1,000


<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      Jul-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                   669
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             28
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                                 6,285
<DEPRECIATION>                                        (3,933)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         3,253
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                                5,555
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                            (2,513)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           3,253
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       1,194
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       1,304
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       352
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (110)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            (6.34)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0
<FN>

<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.

</FN>


</TABLE>
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

98 KA 09-02480 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHARLES M. LEISTMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NICOLE M. FANTIGROSSI OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John J. Connell, J.), rendered September 25, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law, the plea is vacated and the matter is remitted to Monroe County Court for further proceedings on the indictment.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.75 [1] [a]), defendant contends that the plea was involuntary because County Court failed to inform him that a period of postrelease supervision (PRS) would be imposed. Although defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, it is well settled that, “ ‘where a trial judge does not fulfill the obligation to advise a defendant of [PRS] during the plea allocution, the defendant may challenge the plea as not knowing, voluntary and intelligent on direct appeal, notwithstanding the absence of a postallocution motion’ ” ( People v Cornell , 16 NY3d 801, 802; see People v Boyd , 12 NY3d 390, 393). It is also well settled that the court “has the constitutional duty to advise a defendant of the direct consequences of a guilty plea, including any period of [PRS] that will be imposed as part of the sentence,” and “ ‘[t]he failure of a court to advise of [PRS] requires reversal of the conviction’ ” ( Cornell , 16 NY3d at 802, quoting People v Catu , 4 NY3d 242, 245). Here, as the People correctly concede, the record does not establish that the court advised defendant when he pleaded guilty that the sentence would include a period of PRS. To the contrary, the record establishes that the People indicated that they would request a sentence of at least 10 years in prison, and the-2- 98 KA 09-02480

court made no sentence promise other than to indicate that defendant “will be sentenced to state prison.” Because the court “failed to advise defendant prior to the entry of the plea that his sentence would include a period of postrelease supervision, . . . his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered” ( People v Rajab
, 79 AD3d 1718, 1719; see People v Hill , 9 NY3d 189, 191-192, cert denied 553 US 1048; Catu , 4 NY3d at 245). We therefore reverse the judgment, vacate the plea, and remit the matter to County Court for further proceedings on the indictment.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are moot in light of our determination.

Entered: February 7, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Exhibit
32.1





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 Sputnik Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates
indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
knowledge:





(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/ David LaDukeName:
              David
      LaDukeTitle:
              President,
      Chief Executive Officer, andTreasurer





August
11, 2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Sputnik Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Sputnik Enterprises, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2709 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2709

          To temporarily suspend the duty on muzzles for dogs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 4, 2006

 Mrs. Lincoln introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To temporarily suspend the duty on muzzles for dogs.

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

SECTION 1. MUZZLES FOR DOGS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.42.04      Muzzles for dogs    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (provided for in                                                   31/2009
                         subheading
                         4201.00.30)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```