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

)

DEMETRIOUS TERELL PEGUES, et al. )

ORDER

This case is before the court on defendant Demetrious Terrell Pegues’ Motion for

Continuance of Trial Date (Doc. # 219). The criminal case is currently set for trial during the June

4, 2007, trial term. For the reasons that follow, the court finds that the trial for all defendants should

be continued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h).

While the grant of a continuance is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, United

States v. Stitzer, 785 F.2d 1506, 1516 (11th Cir. 1986), the Court is limited by the requirements of

the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. The Act provides in part:

In any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant charged

in an information or indictment with the commission of an offense shall commence

within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or

indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of

the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs.

18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1). However, the Act excludes from the 70 day period any continuance based

on “findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the

public and the defendant in a speedy trial.” § 3161(h)(8)(A).

 The court finds that the ends of justice served by continuing this trial outweigh the best

interest of the public and all defendants in a speedy trial. In support of his motion to continue, Mr.

Pegues represented that his counsel needs more time to review “discovery materials consisting of

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 227 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

7,000 pages of materials . . . .” Further, such time would be used to prepare an effective

representation. Moreover, the government is not opposed to a continuance.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial (Doc. # 30) is

GRANTED. The trial in this matter for all defendants is continued from June 4, 2007, to the

criminal term of court beginning on August 6, 2007. 

DONE this 1st day of May, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 227 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 2 of 2
# L_2014074EN.01002901.xml

| 14.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 74/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 74/29

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 243/2014

of 7 March 2014

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Bornheimer Spargel/Spargel aus dem Anbaugebiet Bornheim (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Germany’s application to register the name ‘Bornheimer Spargel’/‘Spargel aus dem Anbaugebiet Bornheim’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Germany’s application to register the name ‘Bornheimer Spargel’/‘Spargel aus dem Anbaugebiet Bornheim’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Bornheimer Spargel’/‘Spargel aus dem Anbaugebiet Bornheim’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Bornheimer Spargel’/‘Spargel aus dem Anbaugebiet Bornheim’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that 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, 7 March 2014.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 286, 2.10.2013, p. 12.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

GERMANY

Bornheimer Spargel/Spargel aus dem Anbaugebiet Bornheim (PGI)

---
EXHIBIT 31.2 Certification of 
Principal Executive Officer CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Sanford H. Barber, President and Chief Financial Officer of Wes Consulting, Inc., a Florida corporation (the "Company"), certify that: 1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of the Company; 2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4.     The Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have: a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c)     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Companys most recent fiscal quarter (the Companys fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 5.     The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting. Date:  February 17, 2009  /s/ SANFORD H. BARBERSanford H. Barber
Principal Financial Officer
§ 51.346 Tolerances. When a lot of apples is required to meet one of the U.S. grades, the apples shall not be further advanced in maturity than generally firm ripe, and the following tolerances, by weight, shall apply: ( a ) *For defects.* 10 percent for apples which fail to meet the requirements of the grade: *Provided,* That included in this amount not more than the following percentages shall be allowed for the defects listed: ( 1 ) 2 percent for apples which are affected by decay;
( 2 ) 2 percent for apples which are affected by internal breakdown; and,
( 3 ) 5 percent for apples which are affected by worm holes.
( b ) *For off-size.* 5 percent for apples which are smaller than any specified minimum size, and 10 percent for apples larger than any specified maximum size.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MARK PARDEA,

A–087–583–912,

Petitioner,

v. 4:20cv439–WS/MAF

WILLIAM BARR, United States

Attorney General, and JOHN KELLY, 

Secretary of D.H.S., 

Respondents.

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 3) docketed September 14, 2020. The magistrate judge recommends that the

petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

On September 28, 2020, the petitioner's copy of the report and

recommendation was returned to the clerk's office by the post office. The envelope

was stamped: “Return to Sender, Refused, Unable to Forward.” See ECF No. 4. 

Although it is his responsibility to do so, the petitioner has not provided the court

with a current address. 

Case 4:20-cv-00439-WS-MAF Document 6 Filed 10/15/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Upon review of the record, this court has determined that the

recommendation of dismissal should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

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

incorporated by reference in this order of the court. 

2. The petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for lack

of jurisdiction.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: “All claims against William Barr

and John Kelly are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of October , 2020.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 4:20-cv-00439-WS-MAF Document 6 Filed 10/15/20 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's audited financial statements for the year ended March 31, 1999 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 Mar-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                  6,181
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                             481
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        6,533
<PP&E>                                 35,553
<DEPRECIATION>                          2,307
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         39,989
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     326
<BONDS>                                 9,132
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                             30,531
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           39,989
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       22,372
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           4,414
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        (331)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        2,517
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      2,602
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        13,170
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    13,170
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                           13,170
<EPS-BASIC>                           97.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                           97.00


</TABLE>
**Compliance
      Certificate**





Pursuant
      to Section 11.09 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September
      1,
      2006 (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement"), by and among J.P. Morgan Chase
      Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp (the "Depositor"), Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
      and Midland Loan Services, Inc. (the "Master Servicers"), J.E. Robert Company,
      Inc., as special servicer of all Loans other than the Tysons Galleria Whole
      Loan, and LaSalle Bank National Association (the "Trustee"), regarding the
      J.P.
      Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-LDP8
      (the
      "Trust"), the undersigned officers of Pacific Life Insurance Company, as Special
      Servicer of the Tysons Galleria Whole Loan (the "Tysons Galleria Special
      Servicer") do hereby state:





(i)
      A
      review of the activities of the Tysons Galleria Special Servicer for the period
      December 21 through December 31, 2006 and of its performance under the terms
      of
      the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under our
      supervision.





(ii)
      To
      the best of our knowledge, and based upon such review, the Tysons Galleria
      Special Servicer
      has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing; Agreement
      in all
      material respects for such period.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate on March 1,
      2007
      in Newport Beach, California.





PACIFIC
                LIFE INSURANCE COMPANYBy:/s/
                Michelle SticklesTitle:
                Vice PresidentBy:/s/
                Janine StallingsTitle:
                Assistant Vice President























s-\Staff\Kbird\USAP
      2006\JPMC 2006-LDP8 (Tysons)\Certificate Special Servicer.doc
#### In the Matter of Matthew J. Cronin, Appellant, v. Town Board of the Town of North Hempstead, Respondent.

Motion by appellant for a preference in the hearing of the appeal and for other relief denied. On the court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs. The judgment appealed from is intermediate and no appeal lies as of right from such judgment (cf. *Matter of Soros*v. *Board of Appeals of Vil. of Southampton,*24 A D 2d 705, 706). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
**                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           **

----

**FORM 10-QSB**

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWashington D.C.  20549

Quarterly Report Under Section 13 or 15 (d)Of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For Quarter Ended        June 30, 2002    
Commission File Number    2-94704-NY        

              MedXLink, Corp.(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
52.215-22 Limitations on Pass-Through Charges-Identification of Subcontract Effort.       As prescribed in 15.408(n)(1), use the following provision:          Limitations On Pass-Through Charges-Identification Of Subcontract Effort (Oct 2009)                                       (a)                   *Definitions*. Added value, excessive pass-through charge, subcontract, and subcontractor, as used in this provision, are defined in the clause of this solicitation entitled "Limitations on Pass-Through Charges" (FAR 52.215-23).                                          (b)                   *General*. The offeror’s proposal shall exclude excessive pass-through charges.                                          (c) 						            Performance of work by the Contractor or a subcontractor.                                                         (1) 								                The offeror shall identify in its proposal the total cost of the work to be performed by the offeror, and the total cost of the work to be performed by each subcontractor, under the contract, task order, or delivery order.                                                            (2) 								                If the offeror intends to subcontract more than 70 percent of the total cost of work to be performed under the contract, task order, or delivery order, the offeror shall identify in its proposal-                                                                           (i) 										                    The amount of the offeror’s indirect costs and profit/fee applicable to the work to be performed by the subcontractor(s); and                                                                              (ii) 										                    A description of the added value provided by the offeror as related to the work to be performed by the subcontractor(s).                                                                                                           (3) 								                If any subcontractor proposed under the contract, task order, or delivery order intends to subcontract to a lower-tier subcontractor more than 70 percent of the total cost of work to be performed under its subcontract, the offeror shall identify in its proposal-                                                                           (i) 										                    The amount of the subcontractor’s indirect costs and profit/fee applicable to the work to be performed by the lower-tier subcontractor(s); and                                                                              (ii) 										                    A description of the added value provided by the subcontractor as related to the work to be performed by the lower-tier subcontractor(s).                                                                                                                   (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 52.215 [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Shelter
Properties VII Limited Partnership 1999 First Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000758009
<NAME> SHELTER PROPERTIES VII LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             842
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      279
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          22,031
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,973)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,394
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         10,880
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,025
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,394
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   977
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   851
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 224
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       126
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     7.21<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2846 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work footwear. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 18, 2006 

Mr. BROWNBACK introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work footwear. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN WORK FOOTWEAR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.13.79 Work footwear with outer 

soles of rubber, plastics, 

leather or composition leather and uppers of leather, not 

covering the ankle (provided 

for in subheading 

6403.99.60 or 6403.99.90) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 2846 IS 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
§ 61.25 Application for license as sampler; form. ( a ) Applications for licenses to sample cottonseed shall be made to the Director on forms furnished for the purpose by him.
( b ) Each such application shall be in English, shall be signed by the applicant, and shall contain or be accompanied by ( 1 ) satisfactory evidence that he is an actual resident of the United States,
( 2 ) satisfactory evidence of his experience in the handling and sampling of cottonseed,
( 3 ) a statement by the applicant that he agrees to comply with and abide by the terms of the act and these regulations so far as they relate to him, and with instructions issued from time to time governing the sampling of cottonseed, and
( 4 ) such other information as may be required.
Case 3:21-cv-00181-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 1 of 12
Case 3:21-cv-00181-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 2 of 12
Case 3:21-cv-00181-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 3 of 12
Case 3:21-cv-00181-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 4 of 12
Case 3:21-cv-00181-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 5 of 12
Case 3:21-cv-00181-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 6 of 12
Case 3:21-cv-00181-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 7 of 12
Case 3:21-cv-00181-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 8 of 12
Case 3:21-cv-00181-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 9 of 12
Case 3:21-cv-00181-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 10 of 12
Case 3:21-cv-00181-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 11 of 12
Case 3:21-cv-00181-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 12 of 12