alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 19958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08584]


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

 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1974]


Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 286; (Expansion of Service 
Area); Under Alternative Site Framework; Caledonia, Essex and Orleans 
Counties, Vermont

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) (15 
CFR Sec. 400.2(c)) as an option for the establishment or reorganization 
of zones;
    Whereas, the Northeastern Vermont Development Association, grantee 
of FTZ 286, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ Docket B-60-
2014, docketed 08-27-2014) for authority to expand the service area of 
the zone to include Lamoille County, as described in the application, 
adjacent to the Derby Line Customs and Border Protection port of entry;
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (79 FR 52300, 09-03-14) and the application has been processed 
pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations are satisfied;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to reorganize FTZ 286 to expand the service area 
under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's 
regulations, including Section 400.13, and to the Board's standard 
2,000-acre activation limit for the zone.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 3rd day of April 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
ATTEST: ___
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08584 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10391

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL MAXWELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:96-CR-124-A-13

- - - - - - - - - -

November 12, 1997

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Maxwell appeals the denial of his motion for leave

to withdraw his guilty plea to the charges of bank theft and

aiding and abetting bank theft. A district court may permit

withdrawal of a guilty plea before sentencing “if the defendant

shows any fair and just reason.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e). A

district court’s decision regarding plea withdrawal is given

broad discretion and may only be reversed due to an abuse of that

discretion. United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 344 (5th Cir.
No. 97-10391 

-2-

1984). The burden is on the defendant to prove that withdrawal

is warranted. Id. Maxwell’s sole justification for withdrawal

of his guilty plea is his assertion that he did know that his

actions were illegal at the time he committed them. However, at

his plea hearing and in the factual resume signed by him, Maxwell

admitted that he committed the offense with the intent to steal. 

We conclude that the district court’s ruling was not an abuse of

discretion and Maxwell’s motion was properly denied.

Maxwell further argues that the district court abused its

discretion by summarily denying his motion without conducting an

evidentiary hearing. A district court is not required to conduct

an evidentiary hearing when a motion does not present sufficient

factual issues with adequate support. United States v. Rome, No.

92-2499, at 4-5 (5th Cir. Sept. 7, 1993)(per curiam)

(unpublished)(citing United States v. Fuller, 769 F.2d 1095, 1099

(5th Cir. 1985)). In light of Maxwell’s withdrawal motion and

its lack of evidentiary support, we conclude that the district

court did not abuse its discretion by failing to conduct an

evidentiary hearing.

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Loft, Inc., Relator, *v.*James J. Sexton and Others, as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Defendants.

Supreme Court, New York County,

September 2, 1937.

*565
      *Leon Sacks,*for the relator.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel,*for the defendants.

Pécora, J.

This is a motion to expunge from the record in a reference the stipulation permitting the stenographer to charge seventy-five cents per page for the referee’s copy, instead of ten cents per folio, the official rate, or twenty-five cents per page. At the outset it is to be observed that the ten-cent official rate is applicable only to official court stenographers. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1544; *Utica Partition Corp.*v. *Jackson Const. Co.,*201 App. Div. 376; *Eckstein*v. *Schleimer,*62 Misc. 635.) It is evident that an official court stenographer takes the stenographic record as a part of his official duties, for which he is compensated by his salary. Transcription of the record furnished to litigants is not a part of his official duties, and he is permitted to charge a fee therefor, limited by the statute. But an unofficial stenographer’s services include attendance, stenographic service and transcription. His rate must, therefore, be higher than ten cents per folio or twenty-five cents per page. In the absence of a stipulation and the acceptance of charges made by the stenographer, the latter might be compelled to sue for the value of his services or have his fee fixed by testimony before the court as to the reasonable value of the work rendered. The stipulation at the outset of the reference obviates that.

The affidavit of the referee shows that the stipulation was read into the record at the outset.. Perhaps the word *“*stipulation ” was not the best expression, because the assistant corporation counsel did not affirmatively accept the charge as binding. But he should not now be heard to disclaim the charge unless in positive terms he expressed his dissent. Mere silence on his part or even a statement which he claims to have made that he had no power to stipulate would not be sufficient.

Under the circumstances, the motion should be denied and the charge of seventy-five cents per page for the referee’s copy sustained.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 17a0390n.06

Case No. 15-5874

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. JOSE ALBERTO LARA, Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

BEFORE: ROGERS, SUTTON, and COOK, Circuit Judges. COOK, Circuit Judge. In a previous opinion, we held in abeyance the issue of whether defendant Jose Alberto Lara could be found jointl y and severally liable for the proceeds of a drug conspiracy in which he had participated. United States v. Lara , No. 15-5874, 2017 WL 527912, at *4 (6th Cir. Feb. 8, 2017). We did so because the Supr eme Court had recently granted certiorari in a separate case to address “whether, under [21 U.S.C.] § 853, a defendant may be held jointly and severally liable for property that his co-conspirat or derived from the crime but

that the defendant hims elf did not acquire.” Honeycutt v. United States , --- S. Ct. ---, No. 16- 142, 2017 WL 2407468, at *3 (June 5, 2017).

The Court now has resolved that question, holding that “[ Congress] authorized the Government to confiscate assets only from th e defendant who initially acquired the property and who bears responsibility for its dissipation.” Id. at *8; see also id. at *7–9 (rejecting theCase No. 15-5874, United States v. Jose Alberto Lara

- 2 - application of Pinkerton v. United States , 328 U.S. 640 (1946), (i.e., c onspiracy liability) to § 853). Because the district court held Lara liable under § 853 for $162,211—the sum of the drug proceeds attributed to the conspiracy as a w hole—without making factual findings about what portion (if any) Lara “actually acq uired” or whether he received “substitute property” derived from the proceeds, see id. at *7–9, we VACATE the district court’s sentence with respect to Lara’s money-forfeiture judgment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The judgment of the distri ct court is otherwise AFFIRMED for the reasons given in our prior opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3787 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3787

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to recognize the service in the 
 reserve components of certain persons by honoring them with status as 
                          veterans under law.

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

SECTION 1. PROVISION OF STATUS UNDER LAW BY HONORING CERTAIN MEMBERS OF 
              THE RESERVE COMPONENTS AS VETERANS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 107 the following new section:
``Sec. 107A. Honoring as veterans certain persons who performed service 
              in the reserve components
    ``Any person who is entitled under chapter 1223 of title 10 to 
retired pay for nonregular service or, but for age, would be entitled 
under such chapter to retired pay for nonregular service shall be 
honored as a veteran but shall not be entitled to any benefit by reason 
of this section.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
107 the following new item:

``107A. Honoring as veterans certain persons who performed service in 
                            the reserve components.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 28, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3787

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend title 38, United States Code, to recognize the service in the 
 reserve components of certain persons by honoring them with status as 
                          veterans under law.
```
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 798

_____________________________
N ICHOLAS M ALLIS , Appellant,

v.

P ALERMO AT THE C OLONY C ONDOMINIUM A SS OCIATION , I NC

. a nd R EEMPLOYMENT A SSISTANCE A PPEALS C OMMISSION , Appellee s

.

_____________________________

On appeal from an order of the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission

. Frank E. Brown, Chairman.

January 16, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , R AY , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Nicholas Mallis, pro se
, Appellant.
Katie E. Sabo of the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission, Tallahassee
, for Appellee s

.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 10374 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

JERRILL KENYON RUSSELL , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:12

- CR

- 18

- 1

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jerrill Kenyon Russell pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon . The district court sentenced Russell to 180 months in prison pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). As he did in the district court, Russell ar gues that his prior Texas conviction for burglary of a building was not a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year and could not be used to support application of the ACCA

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 8, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-10374 Document: 00512589087 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2014No. 13

- 10374

enhancement in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B) (i)

- (ii) and U.S.S.G § 4B1.4. We review “the district court’s interpretation and application of the [ACCA] de novo .” United States v. Harrimon , 568 F.3d 531, 533 (5th Cir. 2009 ). Russell concedes that he was convicted of burglary of a building , an offense that is a state jail felony and punishable by imprisonment for no more than two years and no less than 180 days. Texas Penal Code § 12.44(a) provides discretion, however, for a court to punish a defendant convicted of a state jail felony by imposing a sentence as if the offe nse were a Class A
misdemeanor. Russell’s sole argument is that because he was sentenced under § 12.44(a) , his offense was not a felony because it was not punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year. In Harrimon , we held that a conviction

was a “vi olent felony” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B) because the offense’s statutory maximum was two years in prison , even though the sentencing court
exercised its discretion to allow the offense to be punished as a misdemeanor under § 12.44

. Harrimon , 568 F.3d at 533 n.3. Russell’s argument is without
merit. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The motion for an extension of time in which to file a brief is DENIED. T he judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-10374 Document: 00512589087 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2014
1

Exhibit C:  

SteadiDrone MAVRIK X8 Features and Specifications

Photo: SteadiDrone MAVRIK X8TM

   
2

SteadiDrone MAVRIK X8TM

FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS

Aircraft Type:   

Multi Rotor X8 Formation

Description:  

The MAVRIK X8TMis a Multirotor, in the X8 format for redundancy and increased payload, the MAVRIK

features a Rapid Deploy Frame TM, and an integrated gimbal for a variety of payloads.  

Key Features:   

The SteadiDrone MAVRIK X8TM Key Features include...

 Highest quality carbon fiber and aluminum constructed 'Rapid Deploy' folding airframe  

 Fully adjustable rail supported brushless gimbal system powered by 32bit AlexMos  

 Gimbal supports huge range of cameras and is fully adjustable for short or longer lenses  

 180 Degrees gimbal tilt angle, from facing over 90° straight down to 90° straight up, ideal for

inspection work  

 Adjustable rail supported battery bay for mounting different size batteries, on top or bottom  

 High strength impact resistant top dome cover with integrated LED, Safety Switch and USB

interface  

 Removable airframe hatch for easy access to all electronics with no tools required!  

 Quick release landing gear legs with clip on holder that setup in seconds, again no tools needed  

 Vibration damping rail system that can be setup for different camera/payload weights  

 Vibration damping motor mount system for high frequency motor vibration reduction  

 Airframe side panel enclosures ensure electronics are protected and hidden  

Advanced GPS Features:

 3DR PixHawk® GPS Flight controller with advanced GPS Features  

 'Follow Me' Have the MAVRIKTM follow you or your subject around  

 'Loiter' Accurate GPS position and altitude hold modes keep your drone where you want it  

 'Return to Home' With a flip of the switch have the drone return home and land autonomously  

 Advanced Waypoint navigation, mission planning and more!

Physical Specifications:

 Dimensions open (LxWxH; mm) 500mm x 775mm x 205 mm

 Dimensions Folded (LxWxH; mm) 585mm x 220mm x 115mm

 Diagnal length: 814mm

 Weight of Airframe: 1300g
3

 Weight RTF exc LiPo : 2650g

 Weight RTF inc LiPo : 3650g

 Weight MAX Payload: 2000g (sUAS), 800g (gimbal)

 Weight MAX AUW : 4950g

Flight Envelope Specifications:

 Max forward speed: 18 m/s

 Max Climb rate: 9 m/s

 Max decent rate: 6 m/s

 Max Radio Range: 1500m

 Min operating temperature: 23 degrees F

 Max operating temperature: 122 degrees F

 Max operating wind: 11 m/s

 Flight time: less than 25 min*

Specs listed for standard RTF (APC Props)

Carbon Props +/= 20‐30% increase in flight time

Duration and payloads may differ depending on ASL, temps etc.

   
4

SteadiDrone MAVRIK X8TM

PRODUCT BROCHURE

   
5

   
6

   
7
EXHIBIT - 31.1

                     SITEWORKS BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT CO.,.

  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Carl Nurse, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of SiteWorks Building &
Development Co for the period ending 3/31/2006.

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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant'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)(4) and 15d-15(e)(4)) for the registrant 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 registrant's
      most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant'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;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting.

June 1, 2006

/s/ Carl Nurse
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 23.1**
**Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants**
     We have issued our reports dated March 6, 2004, accompanying theconsolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report ofSchlotzsky’s, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003. We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the RegistrationStatements of Schlotzsky’s, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-57077, effectiveJune 17, 1998 and File No. 333-37785, effective October 14, 1997 and File No.333-03809, effective May 15, 1996).
GRANT THORNTON LLP
Dallas, Texas
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DIXIE COMMERCE CENTER, LLC,

Appellant,

v.

FEC ROW, LLC,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2165

[February 24, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; James Nutt, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502019CA015478.

Spencer M. Sax and Jeremy Dicker of Sachs Sax Caplan, Boca Raton, 

for appellant.

Joshua R. La Bouef, Matthew T. Jackson, and Edward J. Brown of 

Brennan Manna Diamond, Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, C.J., GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 99

                    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT:  Jeanne McDonald, Vice President
          (212) 888-3344

           FINANCIAL FEDERAL CORPORATION ANNOUNCES 
            PAUL R. SINSHEIMER ELECTED PRESIDENT


NEW YORK, NY:  September 29, 1998 - Clarence Y. Palitz, Jr., 
Chairman and CEO of Financial Federal Corporation ("FIF-NYSE"), 
announced that, at its meeting yesterday, the Company's Board of 
Directors promoted Paul R. Sinsheimer to President and Chief 
Operating Officer, effective immediately.  Mr. Sinsheimer, aged 
51, a joint founder of Financial Federal, will maintain his 
position as President and Chief Operating Officer of Financial 
Federal Credit Inc., the Company's major operating subsidiary.

Prior to Financial Federal's formation in 1989, Mr. Sinsheimer 
was Executive Vice President and Division Manager of First 
Interstate Credit Alliance, Inc., which is now known as Orix 
Credit Alliance, Inc.  That company was founded in 1963 by 
Messrs. Clarence and Bernard Palitz. 

Financial Federal Corporation is a nationwide, independent 
financial services company specializing in financing industrial, 
commercial and professional equipment through installment sales 
and leasing programs for manufacturers, dealers and operators of 
such equipment.  In addition to its New York office, the Company 
has five full-service operations centers which are located in 
Texas, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina and Arizona and 
additional marketing locations throughout the United States.

                              ###

                                       5

<PAGE>