alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:95-cr-01027-MP

BRYAN EDMOND HUNT,

Defendant.

____________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Docs. 83 and 84, Defendant’s first and second motions

for an administrative order from the Court directing the Clerk to not destroy any original tapes or

stenographic notes of the hearings in this case. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753, 

The reporter or other individual designated to produce the record shall attach his

official certificate to the original shorthand notes or other original records so

taken and promptly file them with the clerk who shall preserve them in the public

records of the court for not less than ten years.

Although this case is more than ten years old, the Court has located the original shorthand notes

of Defendant’s September 15, 1995, arraignment and his January 19, 1996, sentencing hearing. 

There do not appear to be any audio recordings of those proceedings. Although the allegations

in Defendant’s motions are patently frivolous, the Court sees no harm in directing the Clerk to 

Case 1:95-cr-01027-MP Document 85 Filed 05/29/09 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:95-cr-01027-MP

continue to retain the records beyond the statutorily mandated period. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The motions at Docs. 83 and 84 are GRANTED to the extent Plaintiff requests the

continued retention of the original shorthand notes from Defendant’s September 15,

1995, arraignment and his January 19, 1996, sentencing hearing. The Clerk is directed to

retain those records for not less than six months. If Defendant wishes to obtain a copy of

the official transcript of those proceedings, he is of course free to direct any such request

to the Clerk’s Office and obtain a copy upon payment of the required fee. In all other

respects, Defendant’s motions are DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of May, 2009

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:95-cr-01027-MP Document 85 Filed 05/29/09 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of David Torrance, Respondent-Appellant, v Joseph A. Stout et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Submitted July 30, 2007;

decided October 23, 2007

Reported below, 38 AD3d *910.*

Motion for leave to appeal granted. Cross motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

RONALD SINGLETON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Case No. 3:03cv581/MCR/EMT

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of the 

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

 /

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation dated December 28, 2005. 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). I have made a de novo

determination of any timely filed objections.

Having considered the report and recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, 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 decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED, and the Commissioner is

ordered to remand this case to the Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings

consistent with the report and recommendation, and the Clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of January, 2006.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-00581-MCR-EMT Document 17 Filed 01/30/06 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 5:99cr15-SPM

FELIPE GUERRA JAIMES,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION AND CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant’s Petition for

Permission to Appeal and Motion to Order Court Transcript and Motion to

Forwarding the Record of Appeal and Reopening the Time to File Appeal

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), (A)(B)(C). Fed. R. App. P. 10(a, b), and (4). 

Doc. 1714. 

The Court is unable to determine what Defendant is seeking to appeal. 

Defendant’s 2002 criminal judgment and sentence (doc. 1307) was affirmed on

direct appeal (doc. 1472). Defendant filed a 2255 motion (doc. 1527) which was

denied by an order filed on February 1, 2005 (doc. 1576). Defendant made an

effort to appeal the denial but the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

(doc. 1691). Defendant filed another appeal (doc. 1663) that was dismissed for
Page 2 of 2

lack of jurisdiction (doc. 1693). Defendant has an appeal pending now (10-

13858 C, doc. 1706). Certificates of appealability have already been denied. 

See docs. 1704 and 1713. 

This Court does not have the ability to readdress matters concerning

Defendant’s appeal of his criminal judgment or appeal of his 2255 motion. In any

event, Defendant has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Defendant’s motion (doc. 1714) is denied.

2. The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

 CASE NO. 5:99cr15-SPM
§ 701.24 Dividing cost-share among more than one participant. ( a ) For qualifying cost-share assistance under this part, the cost shall be credited to the participant who personally performed the practice or who paid to have it performed by a third party. If a payment or credit was made by one participant to another potential participant, paragraph (c) of this section shall apply.
( b ) If more than one participant contributed to the performance of the practice, the cost-share assistance for the practice shall be divided among those eligible participants in the proportion they contributed to the performance of the practice. FSA may determine what proportion was contributed by each participant by considering the value of the labor, equipment, or material contributed by each participant and any other factors deemed relevant toward performance.
( c ) Allowance by a participant of a credit to another participant through adjustment in rent, cash or other consideration, may be considered as a cost of a practice to the paying party only if FSA determines that such credit is directly related to the practice. An applicant who was fully reimbursed shall be considered as not having contributed to the practice performance.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 264

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities 

Act to authorize certain projects in the State of Hawaii. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2005

Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. INOUYE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

A BILL

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 

Study and Facilities Act to authorize certain projects 

in the State of Hawaii.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hawaii Water Re5 sources Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HAWAII RECLAMATION PROJECTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and 

8 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h 

9 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
2

•S 264 IS 

1 ‘‘SEC. 1637. HAWAII RECLAMATION PROJECTS. 

2 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary may—

3 ‘‘(1) in cooperation with the Board of Water 

4 Supply, City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii, par5 ticipate in the design, planning, and construction of 

6 a project in Kalaeloa, Hawaii, to desalinate and dis7 tribute seawater for direct potable use within the 

8 service area of the Board; 

9 ‘‘(2) in cooperation with the County of Hawaii 

10 Department of Environmental Management, Hawaii, 

11 participate in the design, planning, and construction 

12 of facilities in Kealakehe, Hawaii, for the treatment 

13 and distribution of recycled water and for environ14 mental purposes within the County; and 

15 ‘‘(3) in cooperation with the County of Maui 

16 Wastewater Reclamation Division, Hawaii, partici17 pate in the design, planning, and construction of, 

18 and acquire land for, facilities in Lahaina, Hawaii, 

19 for the distribution of recycled water from the 

20 Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility for non21 potable uses within the County. 

22 ‘‘(b) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost 

23 of a project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 

24 25 percent of the total cost of the project. 
3

•S 264 IS 

1 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—Funds provided by the Secretary 

2 shall not be used for the operation and maintenance of 

3 a project described in subsection (a). 

4 ‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

5 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are nec6 essary to carry out this section.’’. 

7 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec8 tions in section 2 of the Reclamation Projects Authoriza9 tion and Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. prec. 371) 

10 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 

11 1636 the following:

‘‘Sec. 1637. Hawaii reclamation projects.’’.

Æ
#### In the Matter of State Commission for Human Rights, Respondent, v. Suburban Associates, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Respondent. In the Matter of Ramon T. Litton et al., Appellants, v. New York State Commission for Human Rights, Respondent.

In two proceedings pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law, one by respondent Commission for enforcement of its order dated September 29, 1967 and the other by appellants to annul the order, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered January 10, 1968, which granted the commission’s application and denied appellants’ application, except that it set aside item (h) of the provision in the commission’s order which directed appellants to take certain itemized affirmative action. Order modified, on the law, by (1) inserting in the first ordering provision thereof (which states that the application for enforcement is granted), immediately before the phrase “ and it is further ”, the following: *“*and except that it is denied as against Ramon T. Litton ”; (2) inserting in the second ordering provision thereof (which states that the application to annul the commission’s order is denied), immediately before the phrase “ and it is further ”, the following: “ and except that it is granted as to Ramon T. Litton”; and (3) striking from the fourth and fifth ordering provisions thereof (which set forth cease and desist and affirmative action directives) the name of Ramon T. Litton and all references to him. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. The facts do not support the findings of knowledge on the part of appellant Ramon T-. Litton, the president of the corporate appellant. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,737,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,597,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   139,000
<INVENTORY>                                 22,860,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,936,000
<PP&E>                                      17,251,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,318,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,485,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,851,000
<BONDS>                                      3,424,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,529,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,858,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,485,000
<SALES>                                     38,328,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            38,328,000
<CGS>                                       24,888,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               35,384,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             931,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,992,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   536,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,456,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,456,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-2978

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Northern Iowa. Duane “Red” Clasen, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 10, 2004 Filed: March 23, 2004

___________ Before MURPHY, HEANEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Duane Clasen pled guilty to distribution of 6.85 grams of methamphetamine (mixture) after having previously been convicted of one or more felony drug offenses in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 851. The undisputed sentencing range was 188 - 235 months. The district court sentenced Clasen to 200 months imprisonment, stating that “when I looked at this file originally, I was going to sentence him to the maximum, which was 235 months. Based on what [the attorney for the government] has told me, I have decreased it somewhat.” (Sentencing Hr’g Tr. at 12.) Clasen appeals his sentence arguing that the district court violated-2- his due process right to an impartial judge by determining what sentence it would impose prior to the sentencing hearing. “It is well settled that a sentence within the range provided by statute is generally not reviewable by an appellate court.” United States v. Collins , 340 F.3d 672, 679 (8th Cir. 2003). Clasen presents no evidence to cause us to veer from this rule. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (enumerating the circumstances when a defendant can appeal an otherwise final sentence). Due to the complexities of guideline sentencing, a district court needs to prepare in advance of the sentencing hearing. Here, the district court also properly considered the points the parties advanced at the hearing before it imposed Clasen’s sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                         5
<LEGEND>

This schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from McCombs
Realty  Partners 2000 First  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>                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                      MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                436
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                              6,239
<DEPRECIATION>                                      3,795
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      3,271
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                             5,588
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                         (2,430)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        3,271
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      385
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      412
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    117
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (27)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (1.57)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0
<FN>

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

</FN>


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2730 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2730

   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Pigment Yellow 175.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 4, 2006

 Mr. Reed (for himself and Mr. Chafee) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Pigment Yellow 175.

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

SECTION 1. PIGMENT YELLOW 175.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.32.19 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Pigment Yellow 175) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2009''.
    (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 enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People, ex rel. James Preston, Appellant, *v.*Stephen B. French et al., Respondents.

(Argued June 17, 1884 ;

decided June 24, 1884.)

*Nelson J. Waterlmry*for appellant. ,

*Ambrose 3. Purdy*for respondents.

Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.
In The Matter Of: CLELIA AYALA Respondent 

## SERVED: July 26, 2013 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFiCE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC ) ) ) ) ) DocketNo. FAA-2012-0910 CaseNo. 2010S0290061



### NOTICE OFRETURN OFRESPONDENT'S DISCOVERY MATERIALS OnAprilS, 2013 theprose Respondent, Ms. CleliaAyala, filed with the Office of Hearings a letter dated April1, 2013, in which she requested certain admissions from the FAA. Attached to this April1, 2013 letter were a variety oforiginal discovery materials, whichthe Respondent requested be utilized as Exhibits I-XIV at a future hearing. The April 1, 2013 Letter and attachments were not accompanied by any certificate ofs·ervice. These documents were not filed with the Hearing Docket, butwere served onthe FAA by the Respondent. (5/14/13 Tr. 16:14-19)
. On June 3, 2013 the FAA filed a Notice ofSettlemerit, which included a signed agreement bytheprose Respondent that her appeal should be dismissed withprejudice. The Respondent's April1, 2013 discovery materials included medical records, tax returns, cell phone bills, checking account statements, and credit card statements. These documents contained multiple references to sensitive, personally identifiable information ("PII") subject to the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule and the Privacy Act. None ofthe PII had been redacted before submission to the Office ofHearings or the FAA. Because the parties have submitted a settlement notice, there is no need for the Office ofHearings to retain the materials or to ensure the filing ofthe same withthe Hearing Docket. Therefore, the original April 1, 2003 letter and attached documents are hereby returned to thepro se Respondent, without any concurrent filing ofthese documents with the Hearing Docket.

Attachment: Service List Documents: Returned to Ms. Ayala

## I

SERVICE LIST- BYU.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1

Mr. William P. Vines, Esq. 

### Complainant's Counsel ONE COPY

Federal Aviation Administration, SouthernRegion Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 ·P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223 Ms. CleliaAyala 

### Respondent 11175 Georgia Avenue, Apt. 603 Wheaton, MD 20902 TEL: 305-588-9397 Judge J.E. Sullivan 

### US. AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2142 FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0910 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 2059I; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
11.502 Procedures.       (a)                    						            Include the applicable liquidated damages clause and liquidated damages rates in solicitations when the contract will contain liquidated damages provisions.                                          (b)                    						            Construction contracts with liquidated damages provisions must describe the rate(s) of liquidated damages assessed per day of delay. The rate(s) should include the estimated daily cost of Government inspection and superintendence. The rate(s) should also include an amount for other expected expenses associated with delayed completion such as-                                                         (1)                          								                Renting substitute property; or                                                            (2)                          								                Paying additional allowance for living quarters.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 11.5 - Liquidated Damages