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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO.: 4:03-CR-1-SPM

NATALIE COTTON PETERS,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant’s notice of appeal and

motion for reconsideration (doc. 164). Defendant requests that this Court

reconsider its decision to deny Defendant’s request for appointment of counsel

in order to pursue her request for a sentence reduction under the retroactive

crack cocaine amendment (Amendments 706 and 711) and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)

(doc. 162). 

This Court found that Defendant was not entitled to a sentence reduction

because her offense involved more than 12 kilograms of cocaine base and that

amount of drugs corresponded to a base offense level of 38 under the both old

drug quantity table and the amended drug quantity table. The arguments that

Defendant has put forth in this current motion are the same arguments that

would have been made at her original sentencing. These arguments are

Case 4:03-cr-00001-SPM-AK Document 173 Filed 06/27/08 Page 1 of 2
2

unrelated to the amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. Therefore, they

would not affect the application of the amended guidelines to Defendant’s

sentence. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s

request for reconsideration (doc. 164) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this twenty-sixth day of June, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00001-SPM-AK Document 173 Filed 06/27/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 3:20cr95/MCR

BRANDIE N. BURK

 /

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, BRANDIE N. BURK, to Counts One and Two of the

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

sentencing as directed.

DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of April 2021.

 s/M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00095-MCR Document 34 Filed 04/01/21 Page 1 of 1
#### § 625.17 Payments not subject to claims.

Any cost-share, contract, or easement payment or portion thereof due any person under this part will be allowed without regard to any claim or lien in favor of any creditor, except agencies of the United States Government.
#### § 58.633 Color.

Coloring used for ice cream and related products shall be those certified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as safe for human consumption.
#### Gerard Webster et al., Respondents, v Giacinto M. Ragona et al., Defendants, and Walter A. Peeters, Appellant.

Submitted June 9, 2007;

decided September 6, 2007

Reported below, 40 AD3d 1360.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     This certification is intended to accompany the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q of Berkshire Bancorp Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), and
is given solely for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002. The undersigned, in my capacity as set forth below, hereby certifies 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/ Steven Rosenberg
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Steven Rosenberg,
                                            Chief Executive Officer, President
                                            and Chief Financial Officer

                                            August 4, 2005


                                       40
#### Nicholas Raffellini, Respondent, v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellant.

Submitted September 10, 2007;

decided September 18, 2007

Reported below, 36 AD3d 92.

Motion by New York Insurance Association, Inc. for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
###### Editorial Note on Part 762

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 762 appear at 72 FR 63297, Nov. 8, 2007.

#### §§ 762.1-762.100 [Reserved]
|   | 1. | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      September 11, 2009 | /s/ Kevin J. Lynch                                       |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                          | Kevin      J. Lynch                                      |
|                          | Chief      Executive Officer and President               |
|                          |                                                     |
| Date:      September 11, 2009 | /s/ John M. Fields, Jr.                                  |
|                          | John      M. Fields, Jr.                                 |
|                          | Executive      Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer |

----
§ 70.70 Payment of fees and charges. ( a ) Fees and charges for any grading service shall be paid by the interested party making the application for such grading service, in accordance with the applicable provisions of this section and §§ 70.71 through 70.78, inclusive.
( b ) Fees and charges for any grading service shall, unless otherwise required pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, be paid by check, electronic funds transfer, draft, or money order made payable to the National Finance Center. Payment for the service must be made in accordance with directions on the billing statement, and such fees and charges must be paid in advance if required by the official grader or other authorized official.
( c ) Fees and charges for any grading under a cooperative agreement with any State or person shall be paid in accordance with the terms of such cooperative agreement.
[41 FR 23681, June 11, 1976; 41 FR 24693, June 18, 1976. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981, as amended at 71 FR 42014, July 24, 2006; 84 FR 49644, Sept. 23, 2019]
52.242-6 [Reserved]

Parent topic: 52.242 [Reserved]
# L_2014284EN.01004801.xml

| 30.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 284/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 284/48

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 25 September 2014

appointing a United Kingdom member of the Committee of the Regions

(2014/683/EU)

(2014/683/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the United KingdomGovernment,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015. On 11 March 2014, by Council Decision 2014/C 74/01 (3), Mr Andrew LEWER was appointed member until 25 January 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015. On 11 March 2014, by Council Decision 2014/C 74/01 (3), Mr Andrew LEWER was appointed member until 25 January 2015.

1

2

3

| (2) | A member's seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Andrew LEWER, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member's seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Andrew LEWER,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed as member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:

| — | Ms Ann STRIBLEY, Councillor. |
| --- | --- |

—

Ms Ann STRIBLEY, Councillor.

Councillor

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 25 September 2014.

For the Council

The President

F. GUIDI

---

(1)  OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.

1

(2)  OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.

2

(3)  Council Decision of 11 March 2014 appointing four United Kingdom members of the Committee of the Regions (OJ C 74, 13.3.2014, p. 1).

3

---
#### Fay Sanders et al., Respondents, v Harry D. Silverstein et al., Defendants, and Jackson Gardens, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant Jackson Gardens appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 4, 1979, which, *inter aha,*(1) denied its motion to dismiss the action, (2) granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to relieve them from their default in serving the complaint and (3) directed appellant to accept service of the complaint. Defendant Jackson Gardens also appeals from a further order of the same court, dated May 14, 1979, which was made upon its motion to reargue the decision of the court upon which the September 4, 1979 order was based. Appeal from the order dated May 14, 1979 dismissed, without costs or disbursements. No appeal lies from an order made on a motion to reargue a decision. Order dated September 4, 1979 reversed, on the law, without costs *932or disbursements, motion to dismiss granted, cross motion denied, and, as to defendant Jackson Gardens, the action is severed and dismissed. Plaintiffs’ counsel has been inexcusably lax in prosecuting this action and no valid reason is given for the delay in serving the complaint. Hopkins, J. P., Mangano, Rabin and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
52.216-12 Cost-Sharing Contract-No Fee.

As prescribed in 16.307(f), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts when a costsharing contract is contemplated. This clause may be modified by substituting "$10,000" in lieu of

"$100,000" as the maximum reserve in paragraph (b) if the contract is with a nonprofit organization.

Cost Sharing Contract-No Fee (Apr 1984)

(a) The Government shall not pay to the Contractor a fee for performing this contract.

(b) After paying 80 percent of the Government’s share of the total estimated cost of performance

shown in the Schedule, the Contracting Officer may withhold further payment of allowable cost until

a reserve is set aside in an amount that the Contracting Officer considers necessary to protect the

Government’s interest. This reserve shall not exceed onepercent of the Government’s share of the

total estimated cost shown in the Schedule or $100,000, whichever is less.

(End of clause)

Alternate I (Apr 1984). In a contract for research and development with an educational institution,

for which the contracting officer has determined that withholding of a portion of allowable cost is

not required, delete paragraph (b) of the basic clause.

Parent topic: 52.216 [Reserved]
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

** United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 6, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41672

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus 

JOSE VICTOR GARCIA-ZAPATA, also known as Jose Garcia-Zapata, 

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:06-CR-623-1

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

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Victor

Garcia-Zapata (Garcia) preserves for further review his

contention that his sentence is unreasonable because this court’s

post-Booker** rulings have effectively reinstated the mandatory

Sentencing Guideline regime condemned in Booker. Garcia concedes

that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Mares, 402

F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2005), and its progeny, which have outlined

this court’s methodology for reviewing sentences for
No. 06-41672

-2-

reasonableness. Garcia also raises arguments that are foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
Case 3:06-cv-00627-WKW-SRW Document 9 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This
certification is intended to accompany the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Berkshire Bancorp Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), and is given
solely for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The
undersigned, in my capacity as set forth below, hereby certifies to the best of
my knowledge 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/ Steven Rosenberg               
| |                                    
| | Steven
 Rosenberg,                 
| | Chief
 Executive Officer, President
| | and Chief
 Financial Officer       
| |                                    
| | August 11,
 2009                   

---
Amendment to Class A Warrant Agreement



 Exhibit 10.72 
 AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 CLASS A WARRANT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment to the Class A Warrant Agreement dated
December 13, 2006 (the “Agreement”) is made as of May     , 2009 by and between Middle Kingdom Alliance Corporation (the “Company”) and Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company (“Warrant
Agent”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Warrant Agent are parties to the Agreement; 
 WHEREAS, the Company completed an offering of its securities on December 13, 2006 pursuant to which it issued, among other securities, Class A
warrants pursuant to the terms of the Agreement; 
 WHEREAS, the prospectus included in the registration statement pursuant to which the
Class A warrants were issued (the “Prospectus”) stated that if no registration statement is effective permitting the sale of the shares of common stock underlying the Class A warrants, that the Class A warrants may be
exercised on a cashless basis commencing one year after such warrants are initially exercisable; 
 WHEREAS, the parties inadvertently failed
to include the foregoing provision in the Agreement; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Warrant Agent desire to amend the terms and conditions
contained in the Agreement to reflect the terms in the Prospectus. 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Warrant Agent agree as follows. 
  

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

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

			
	 CONTINENTAL STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY,
 as Trustee

		
	By:	 	  

	Name:	 	Steven G. Nelson
	Title:	 	Chairman
	
	MIDDLE KINGDOM ALLIANCE CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	  

	Name:	 	Bernard J. Tanenbaum III
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

v. Case No. 3:21-cr-40-MCR

JOSEPH JACKSON

/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The Defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. 

R. Crim. P., and has entered a plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment. After 

cautioning and examining the Defendant under oath concerning each of the subjects 

mentioned in Rule 11, I determined the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and 

the offense charged is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of 

the essential elements thereof. I therefore recommend the plea of guilty be accepted 

and the Defendant be adjudicated guilty and have sentence imposed accordingly.

Dated: September 29, 2021.

/s/ Michael J. Frank 

MICHAEL J. FRANK

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00040-MCR Document 459 Filed 09/29/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 3:21cr40/MCR

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be 

filed within twenty-four (24) hours of the date of the Report and 

Recommendation. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic 

docket is for the court’s internal use only and does not control. An objecting 

party must serve a copy of the objections on all other parties. A party who 

fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations contained 

in a report and recommendation waives the right to challenge on appeal the 

district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. 

See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case 3:20-cr-00040-MCR Document 459 Filed 09/29/21 Page 2 of 2
#### § 70.17 Accessibility of products.

Each product for which grading service is requested shall be so placed as to disclose fully its class, quality, quantity, and condition as the circumstances may warrant.
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 I, John
A. Brunkow, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form
10KSB of IMMS , Inc. for the year ending December 31, 2007 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10KSB
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of IMMS, Inc. of Nevada.
  Date: March
      17, 2008
                By:
                /s/ John
      A. BrunkowJohn
      A. BrunkowVice
      President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer
52.246-13 Inspection-Dismantling, Demolition, or Removal of Improvements.       As prescribed in 46.313, insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts for dismantling, demolition, or removal of improvements:          Inspection-Dismantling, Demolition, or Removal of Improvements (Aug 1996)                                       (a) 						            Unless otherwise designated by the specifications, all workmanship performed under the contract is subject to Government inspection at all times and places where dismantling or demolition work is being performed. The Contractor shall furnish promptly, and at no increase in contract price, all reasonable facilities, labor, and materials necessary for safe and convenient inspection by the Government. The Government shall perform inspections in a manner that will not unduly delay the work.                                          (b) 						            The Contractor is responsible for damage to property caused by defective workmanship. The Contractor shall promptly segregate and remove from the premises any unsatisfactory facilities, materials, and equipment used in contract performance, and promptly replace them with satisfactory items. If the Contractor fails to proceed at once in a workmanlike manner with performance of the work or with the correction of defective workmanship, the Government may-                                                         (1) 								                By contract or otherwise, replace the facilities, materials, and equipment or correct the workmanship and charge the cost to the Contractor; and                                                            (2) 								                Terminate for default the Contractor’s right to proceed. The Contractor and any surety shall be liable, to the extent specified in the contract for any damage or cost of repair or replacement.                                                                    (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.246 [Reserved]
Case 2:06-cv-00626-WHA-DRB Document 6 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00626-WHA-DRB Document 6 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 2 of 2