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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-2282

FLORDELIZA A. HAWKINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SUNTRUST BANK; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL 

SERVICES, SCDSS; ANDERSON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, ACSO,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Anderson. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (8:18-cv-00178-DCC)

Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: April 8, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Flordeliza A. Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Flordeliza A. Hawkins appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate 

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended 

that relief be denied and advised Hawkins that failure to file timely, specific objections to 

this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon 

the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Massey v. Ojaniit, 759 

F.3d 343, 352 (4th Cir. 2014); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985). Hawkins

has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper 

notice. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the 

judgment of the district court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 10.2**

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUPPLY AGREEMENT 

 

This FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUPPLY AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of this 27th day of May, 2004 by and between Panera, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Panera”) and Jones Soda Co., aWashington corporation with a principal place of business at 234 Ninth Avenue North, Seattle, WA 98109 (“Seller”). 

 

WITNESSETH: 

 

WHEREAS, Panera and Seller are parties to that certain Supply Agreement dated May 28, 2003 (the “Agreement”); and 

 

WHEREAS, Panera and Seller desire to amend the Agreement in the mannerhereinafter set forth. 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration ofthese premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 

 

1. Section 10.01 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

 

Section 10.01 Duration. The term of this Supply Agreement shall begin on May 28, 2003 and shall terminate on May 27, 2005.

 

2. Except to the extent specifically amended by thisAmendment, all of the terms, provisions, conditions, covenants, representations and warranties contained in the Agreement shall be and remain in full force and effect and the same are hereby ratified and confirmed. 

 

3. This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Paneraand Seller and their respective permitted successors and assigns in accordance with Section 6 of the General Terms and Conditions Addendum Attached to the Agreement. 

 

4. Panera and Seller warrant and represent that the individual who is signing this Amendment on behalf of Panera and Sellerand whose signature appears below, is authorized to execute this Amendment and to bind Panera and Seller to the terms contained herein. 

 

5. This Amendment will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Missouri, United States of America. 

 

6. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of whichwill be deemed to be an original copy of this Amendment and all of which, when taken together, will be deemed to constitute one and the same agreement. 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment to Supply Agreement as of the date and year first referenced above. 

 

 

-1-
2011 UDM/OECD Technical Workshop

Day 1 – The UDM

1

November 15 (AM session):

 Introductions, scope, agenda (15 

min)

 Action items and priorities (15 

min)

 Review of the Collaborative Study 

Data (20 min)

 UDM maximum carrier counts (20 

min)

 Lab demonstrations and discussion 

(2 hrs)

 Emphasis on standardization of testing 

across labs

 Test Cultures

 Carrier transfers

 Volume of media

 Neutralization

November 15 (PM session):

 Update on ATP-related issues (1.5 

hr)

 Proposed official changes to the 

method and AOAC’s perspective (1 

hr)

 Report on AOAC Annual Meeting 

Activities 

 AOAC method revision process

 Procedural changes

 Editorial changes

 Timeline

 Future use of the UDM (1 hr)

 EPA’s goals and expectations 

 Transition to the OECD method
2011 UDM/OECD Technical Workshop

Day 2 – The OECD Method

2

November 16 (AM session):

 Report on OECD Meeting in Paris 

(30 min)

 Review of data from OECD method 

(1.5 hr)

 Product performance data

 Neutralization assay 

 Reference standard 

 Growth medium

 Inoculum distribution

 Carrier surface

 OECD method demonstrations (2 hr 

in lab) 

November 16 (PM session):

 Proposed collaborative study of the 

OECD bactericidal method (1 hr)

 Timeline

 OECD method implementation (1.5 

hr)

 OECD collaborative data – its 

potential impact

 OECD performance standard(s)

 Timeline for implementation

 Meeting Wrap-up (30 min)
# Map            Yemen.
SUPREME COURT.

#### Joseph Pelo agt. John Clukey.

A Motion to *vacate an order of arrest*may now be made after judgment, if made within twenty cays after the service of the order.

*St. Lawrence County Special Term, November,*1868.

This was a motion to vacate an order of arrest.

• The facts so far as material to this motion, are as follows: An order of arrest was obtained in February, 1868, and the defendant was arrested and held to bail in March thereafter. A defense was interposed to the action, but no judgment has yet been entered. In September notice of this motion was given, and the same was. continued by stipulation to the present.

Geo. Morris, *for the motion.*

D. O’Brien, *in opposition.*

James, J.

It was conceded on the argument that the affidavits were sufficient to require the order of arrest to be vacated, if the motion for that purpose was made in time. The defendant relied upon section 204 of the Code, which enacts that *‘‘*a defendant arrested may, at any time before judgment, apply on motion, to vacate the order of arrest, or to reduce the amount of bail.”

The plaintiff claimed that the amendment to section 183 of the Code, passed in 1862, was inconsistent with section 204, and the latter being the older statute was repealed by implication; that now a motion to vacate an order of arrest must be made within twenty days after service of the order; which was not done in this case.

The amendment reads as follows: “ But said order of arrest shall be of no avail, and shall be vacated, or set aside, on *180motion, unless the same is served upon the defendant, as provided by law, before the docketing of any judgment in the action ; and the defendant *shall*have *tiventy days, after the service of the order of arrest,*in which to answer the complaint in the action, *and to move to vacate the order of arrest,*or to reduce the amount of bail.” In support of bis view the plaintiff cited 1st *Vol. New York Practice,*257. Section 183, as amended, and section 204 are not at all inconsistent with each other. They may be so construed as to harmonize and correctly effectuate the purposes of the amendment. The note to *1st N. Y. Practice,*257, is a proper exposition of the two sections as amended. By *section*204 a defendant may, at any time before judgment move to vacate an order of arrest; the amendment was intended to enlarge the time in which a motion to vacate might be made, when twenty days did not elapse between the service of the order and the entry of judgment, and such is the fair, and legitimate construction of the amendment. A motion to vacate an order of arrest may now be made after judgment, if made within twenty days after service of the order.

Motion to vacate granted.
No. 11-5588.

#### Diaz-Orozco, aka Ortega *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

AIR AND RADIATION MANA GEMENT ADMINISTRATION

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

for the

PUBLIC HEARING held on January 21, 2010

in BALTIMORE, MD related to new Regulation .09-1 under chapter COMAR 26.11.19

Purpose of Hearing : The purpose of the public hearing was to allow for public comment on the Department's proposal to adop t new Regulation .09-1 under chapter COMAR 26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC ) from Specific Processes.

The new regulation adopts the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for indus trial cleaning solvents and affects users of industrial cleaning solvents. The CTG app lies to facilities that emit 15 pounds or more per day (6.8 kg/day) of VOC.

Date and Location : The public hearing was held on January 21, 2010 at 10 a.m. at the Department of the Environment, 1800 Wa shington Boulevard, 1st Floor Aeris Conference Room, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

Attendance : Deborah Rabin, Regulations Coordina tor, Air and Radiation Management Administration, served as Hearing Officer. Ma rcia Y. Kinter of Specialty Graphics Imaging Association (SGIA) attended the public hearing.

Statement : The Department's statement was s ubmitted into the record by Husain Waheed, Senior Regulatory and Compliance Engineer of the Re gulation Development

Division of the Air and Radi ation Management Administ ration, Department of the

Environment.

Comments and Responses : Comment was received from SGIA during the public hearing.

The written comment received has been summa rized and the Department's response is given below.

COMMENT : The commenter opposes the implementation of the limit of 50 grams VOC per liter to digital printing operations . The provisions contained in 26.11.19.18 (F) include the use of cleaning solvents by digi tal printing operations , therefore, digital operations should be exempted from this proposed re gulation.

While the current regulatory language does not specifically reference cleaning materials, the language clearly states:“General Requirements for Digital Imaging. A person who owns or operates digital imaging that is subject to this regulation may not cause the discharge of VOC emissions into the atmosphere in excess of 100 pounds on any day from all digi tal printing at the premises.”

Digital printing activities includ e cleaning of the equipment, therefore, cleaning solvents are already regulated by the State.

RESPONSE: Under the proposed amendment (C OMAR 26.11.19.09-1), the definition for “Industrial solvent cleaning operation” does not include cl eaning operations at sources subject to any other VOC regulat ions under COMAR 26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processe s. Since digital printing is subject to the regulations under COMAR 26.11.19.18(F), cleaning operations at digital printing sources are exempt from the proposed COMAR 26.11.19.09-1.

L:\AQPlanning and Monitoring\Regulation Development Division\CTGs\26-11-19-09-1 Industrial Solvent Cleaning\Hearing\RTC for digital printing operations.doc
#### § 301-10.421 How much will my agency reimburse me for a tip to a taxi, TNC, innovative mobility technology company, shuttle service, courtesy transportation driver, or valet parking attendant?

An amount which your agency determines to be reasonable.
§ 27.95 Fires. On all national wildlife refuges persons are prohibited from the following: ( a ) Setting on fire or causing to be set on fire any timber, brush, grass, or other inflammable material including camp or cooking fires, except as authorized by the refuge manager or at locations designated for that purpose or as provided for under § 26.33(c) of this subchapter C.
( b ) Leaving a fire unattended or not completely extinguished;
( c ) Throwing a burning cigarette, match, or other lighted substance from any moving conveyance or throwing of same in any place where it may start a fire; and
( d ) Smoking on any lands, including roads, or in any buildings which have been designated and/or posted with no smoking signs.
<PAGE>   1

                                  Exhibit 23.3


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





The Board of Directors
Western Water Company:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-28759, 333-19595, 333-10367, 33-47606, 33-64750, 33-74278, 33-80137 and
33-88062) on Form S-3 of Western Water Company of our report dated May 15, 1998,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Western Water Company and
subsidiaries as of March 31, 1998 and 1997 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years then
ended, which report appears in the March 31, 1998 Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Western Water Company.




                                                   /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   KMPG Peat Marwick LLP


San Diego, California
June 4, 1998
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5163

To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to apply fast track procedures to an

implementing bill submitted by the President to the 104th Congress

with respect to the Uruguay Round trade agreements.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 4, 1994

Mr. DREIER introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on Ways and Means and Rules

A BILL

To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to apply fast track procedures to an implementing bill submitted by the President

to the 104th Congress with respect to the Uruguay

Round trade agreements.

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

3 That section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.

4 2191) is amended by adding at the end the following:

5 ‘‘(h) IMPLEMENTING BILL FOR URUGUAY ROUND.—

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the

7 procedures set forth in this section that apply to imple8 menting bills shall apply to an implementing bill that is
2

•HR 5163 IH

1 submitted by the President, during the 104th Congress,

2 to the House of Representatives and the Senate with re3 spect to trade agreements resulting from the Uruguay

4 Round of multilateral trade negotiations under the aus5 pices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.’’.

Æ
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5170

To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect against code grabbers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 4, 1994

Mr. PACKARD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect against

code grabbers.

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 ‘‘Code Grabber Prohibi5 tion Act of 1994’’.

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF CODE GRABBERS.

7 Section 2510(16) of title 18, United States Code, is

8 amended—

9 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph

10 (D);
2

•HR 5170 IH

1 (2) by inserting ‘‘or’’ at the end of subpara2 graph (E); and

3 (3) by adding after subparagraph (E) the fol4 lowing;

5 ‘‘(F) a coded signal sent by a motor vehicle

6 alarm system, unless the interception, access,

7 disclosure, or other conduct otherwise prohib8 ited by this chapter or chapter 121 of this title

9 is for a noncriminal and nontortious purpose;’’.

Æ
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 516

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the

labeling of milk.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 21, 1993

Mr. KLUG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with

respect to the labeling of milk.

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 ‘‘Milk Nutrition and

5 Labeling Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. MILK LABELING.

7 Section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

8 Act (21 U.S.C. 341) is amended by inserting ‘‘(a)’’ before

9 ‘‘Whenever’’ and by adding at the end the following:
2

HR 516 IH

1 ‘‘(b) In establishing standards of identity for food

2 under subsection (a), the following shall apply with respect

3 to the labeling of milk:

4 ‘‘(1) Fluid milk may indicate on its label the

5 portion of milk which is non-fat content.

6 ‘‘(2)(A) Skim milk that is in final package form

7 for beverage use shall contain not less than 9 per8 cent of milk solids not fat.

9 ‘‘(B) Lowfat milk that is in final package form

10 for beverage use shall contain not less than 10 per11 cent of milk solids not fat.

12 ‘‘(C) Milk that is in final package form for bev13 erage use shall contain not less than 8.7 percent of

14 milk solids not fat.

15 ‘‘(3) The label on any milk product may promi16 nently display the protein content of the milk.’’.

17 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

18 The amendments made by section 2 shall take effect

19 upon the expiration of one year after the date of the enact20 ment of this Act.

Æ
(0it (1it

Mean((ˆ

jit) '

1

341j

341

t'1

(ˆ

jit, j ' 0, 1)

(ˆ

0it (ˆ0it (ˆ0it (ˆ1it (ˆ1it (ˆ1it (ˆ0it (ˆ1it

Table 1a

Summary Statistics for the Estimates of the and When Conjunction I Holds

Estimation Period: August 1963 to December 1991, 341 months

(t ratios in Parentheses, * denotes statistically significant t ratio at the 0.05 level, and 

Portfolio Min( ) Max( ) Range( ) Min( ) Max( ) Range( ) Mean( ) Mean( ) Log

likelihood

ns1b1e -14.45 13.76 28.21 0.71 2.32 1.61 0.05 1.39 -976.73

(0.15) (8.00)*

ns1b5e -6.28 19.61 25.89 -0.89 3.62 4.51 0.76 0.98 -930.89

(1.91) (15.27)*

ns2b1e -12.61 10.78 23.38 0.97 2.00 1.03 -0.06 1.43 -890.23

(-0.23) (21.58)*

ns2b5e -8.34 13.02 21.35 0.47 1.86 1.39 0.66 1.15 -854.05

(2.83)* (1.03)

ns3b1e -6.71 10.01 16.72 1.01 1.98 0.97 -0.06 1.33 -805.04

(-0.28) (36.48)*

ns3b5e -6.20 11.72 17.92 0.40 1.91 1.51 0.65 1.10 -835.90

(3.26)* (0.96)

ns4b1e -6.41 8.57 14.98 1.09 1.42 0.33 0.00 1.23 -721.41

(0.02) (13.45)*

ns4b5e -6.35 9.14 15.49 0.44 1.79 1.35 0.52 1.18 -813.86

(2.50)* (1.24)

ns5b1e -4.03 4.33 8.37 0.67 1.36 0.69 -0.12 1.04 -654.99

(-1.04) (48.32)*

ns5b5e -8.47 9.70 18.18 0.07 1.42 1.35 0.20 0.90 -830.90

(1.08) (6.54)*
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DANIEL JOSE AGOSTO

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 2132

[ October 17, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Laura Johnson , Judge; L.T. Case No. 502017CF011484A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy,

Assistant Attorney Gener al, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN

, C IKLIN and G ERBER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32.1





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



In connection with the quarterly report of Ecash, Inc... (Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his knowledge:



The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



August 24, 2006



By:       Gary Borglund

Gary Borglund, President

Principal Executive Officer and

Chief Financial  Officer
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37347

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ANTONIO VAQUERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 637

Filed: September 9, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia

County. Hon. Michael R. Crabtree, District Judge. 

Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified seven-year sentence 

with two-year determinate term for forgery, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Antonio Vaquera pled guilty to forgery. Idaho Code § 18-3601. The district court 

imposed a unified seven-year sentence with a two-year determinate term, but after a period of 

retained jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and placed Vaquera on supervised probation. 

Subsequently, Vaquera admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the district court 

consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence. Vaquera appeals 

contending that the district court abused its discretion by revoking his probation.

It is within the trial court’s discretion to revoke probation if any of the terms and 

conditions of the probation have been violated. I.C. §§ 19-2603, 20-222; State v. Beckett, 122 

Idaho 324, 325, 834 P.2d 326, 327 (Ct. App. 1992); State v. Adams, 115 Idaho 1053, 1054, 772 

P.2d 260, 261 (Ct. App. 1989); State v. Hass, 114 Idaho 554, 558, 758 P.2d 713, 717 (Ct. App. 
2

1988). In determining whether to revoke probation a court must examine whether the probation 

is achieving the goal of rehabilitation and consistent with the protection of society. State v. 

Upton, 127 Idaho 274, 275, 899 P.2d 984, 985 (Ct. App. 1995); Beckett, 122 Idaho at 325, 834 

P.2d at 327; Hass, 114 Idaho at 558, 758 P.2d at 717. The court may, after a probation violation 

has been established, order that the suspended sentence be executed or, in the alternative, the 

court is authorized under Idaho Criminal Rule 35 to reduce the sentence. Beckett, 122 Idaho at 

325, 834 P.2d at 327; State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976, 977, 783 P.2d 315, 316 (Ct. App. 1989). A 

decision to revoke probation will be disturbed on appeal only upon a showing that the trial court 

abused its discretion. Beckett, 122 Idaho at 325, 834 P.2d at 327.

Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot 

say that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and ordering execution of 

Vaquera’s original sentence. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of 

Vaquera’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.