alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31526-31527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15209]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Proposed Modified Final Judgment and Memorandum in Support of 
Modification

    Notice is hereby given that Modified Final Judgment, Motion to 
Modify Final Judgment, Memorandum in Support of the Modification of the 
Final Judgment, Stipulation and Order, and Hold Separate Stipulation 
and Order have been filed with the United States District Court in the 
District of Columbia, in United States et al v. USA Waste Services, 
Inc., et al., Civil No. 96-2031.
    The existing Final Judgment stems from a 1996 acquisition of 
Sanifill, Inc., by USA Waste. The Final Judgment was entered to resolve 
competitive concerns that the Antitrust Division had about the impact 
of the acquisition in Houston, Texas. Pursuant to the Final Judgment, 
USA Waste divested Sanifill's small container commercial hauling assets 
and a USA Waste disposal site in Houston and sold 2,000,000 tons of air 
space rights for ten years at two USA Waste landfills in the Houston 
area. The assets were purchased by TransAmerican Waste Industries, Inc. 
On January 26, 1998, TransAmerican and USA Waste entered into an 
agreement whereby TransAmerican would be merged into USA Waste, and the 
Houston assets TransAmerican purchased from USA Waste would be owned by 
USA Waste.
    On May 5, 1998, the United States filed a proposed Modified Final 
Judgment to modify the Final Judgment in this case. The United States 
maintained that the proposed acquisition of TransAmerican's commercial 
hauling and disposal assets in the Houston area would violate the 
original Final Judgment. The proposed Modified Final Judgment requires 
USA

[[Page 31527]]

Waste to divest the TransAmerican commercial small container and 
disposal assets in the Houston area and provide 2,000,000 tons of air 
space rights for ten years at two USA Waste landfills in the Houston 
area.
    The Hold Separate Stipulation and Order and the Stipulation and 
Order ensure that the provisions of the proposed Modified Final 
Judgment will be observed and that the assets to be divested will be 
held separate and maintained as a viable competitive entity until the 
divestiture takes place.
    Public comments on the proposed Modified Final Judgment should be 
directed to J. Robert Kramer, Chief, Litigation II Section, Antitrust 
Division, United States Department of Justice, 1401 H Street, NW, Suite 
3000, Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202/307-0924). Such comments and 
responses thereto will be filed with the Court.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations and Merger Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 98-15209 Filed 5-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 August 12, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Rocco B. CommissoRocco B. CommissoChief Executive Officer By:
    /s/ Mark E. StephanMark E. StephanChief Financial Officer
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the consolidated
statements of operations and consolidated balance sheets of Mediacom LLC and it
subsidiaries and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,700
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,677
<ALLOWANCES>                                       408
<INVENTORY>                                     11,606
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         369,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                (82,200)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 455,155
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,634
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   455,155
<SALES>                                        113,230
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               113,230
<CGS>                                           36,571
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  129,691
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   979
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,577
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (38,017)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (38,017)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (38,017)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2903

_____________________________

RUSSEL SMITH JR. and TERESA 

SMITH,

Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, etc.,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County.

Andrew J. Decker, III, Judge.

July 12, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

B.L. THOMAS, KELSEY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Aimee Jackson of Three Rivers Legal Services, Inc., Lake City; 

George T. Reeves of Davis, Schnitker, Reeves & Browning, PA, 

Madison; for Appellant.

Joseph H. Picone and Kimberly S. Mello of Greenberg Traurig, 

P.A., Tampa; Mark C. Elia of Van Ness Law Firm, PA, Deerfield 

Beach; for Appellee.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, John W. Richardson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Qwest Corporation;

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(s) 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 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; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 1, 2007                                
|                                                    
|/S/    JOHN W. RICHARDSON                           
|John W. Richardson                                  
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
No. 10-5780.

#### Solomon Ben-Tov Cohen, Petitioner v. Theresa Hunt, Warden.

562 U.S. 937, 131 S. Ct. 345,

178 L. Ed. 2d 224,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7401,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 850.
No. 10-5634.

#### Sherron Wilson, Petitioner v. Don Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center.

562 U.S. 932, 131 S. Ct. 330,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7274.

178 L. Ed. 2d 214,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donovan Gilliard, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 639]

*1148Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), rendered August 14, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to a determinate term of imprisonment of 12 years, to be followed by 5 years of post-release supervision.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed from a determinate term of imprisonment of 12 years, to be followed by 5 years of postrelease supervision, to a determinate term of imprisonment of 10 years, to be followed by 5 years of postrelease supervision; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender treatment *(see*CPL 720.20 [1]; *People v Morse,*144 AD3d 710, 710 [2016]; *People v Bae,*137 AD3d 804, 804 [2016]; *People v Jones,*118 AD3d 912, 914 [2014]). Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the payment of restitution was a condition of the plea agreement and, in any event, the defendant accepted the sentence of restitution at the time of sentencing *(see People v Simmons,*133 AD3d 896, 896-897 [2015]; *People v Watson,*287 AD2d 889, 890 [2001]).

However, the sentence imposed was excessive. In exchange for his plea, the defendant was promised a sentence of a determinate term of imprisonment ranging from 10 to 12 years. At the time the crime was committed, the defendant was 18 years old, and this was his first contact with the criminal justice system. The defendant has a long history of mental illness, alcohol abuse, and substance abuse. Under the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to reduce the defendant’s sentence to a determinate term of imprisonment of 10 years, to be followed by 5 years of postrelease supervision.

Rivera, J.R, Chambers, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

August 6, 2009 

p0720 

Order 

 

August 6, 2009 

138399 

WILLIS AUXIER, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138399 

 COA: 281793 

Kent CC: 07-001536-NF 

NATIONWIDE PROPERTY & 

CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 27, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should now be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2240 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2240

                    The Rape Victims' Protection Act

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 June 24 (legislative day, June 7) 1994

   Mr. Hatch introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                    The Rape Victims' Protection Act

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
    Section 1. This Act shall be called the ``Rape Victims' Protection 
Act''.
    Sec. 2. In any criminal or civil action for rape or sexual assault, 
no court, State or Federal, shall order the disclosure of the records 
of any rape counseling or battered women's center, or shall compel 
testimony from the agents or employees of such centers with respect to 
the substance of their counseling, unless the moving party demonstrates 
a compelling need for such records or testimony.

                                 <all>
```
No. 09-11250.

#### Earl Bradley Booker, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 870, 131 S. Ct. 168,

178 L. Ed. 2d 99,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6475.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

         Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. "1350, I, the
undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Pierre Foods, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended August 31, 2002 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Norbert E. Woodhams
October 15, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2318 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 587
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2318

                          [Report No. 103-345]

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
               coastwise trade for the vessel ENDEAVOUR.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 26 (legislative day, July 20), 1994

Mr. Kerry (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

              August 19 (legislative day, August 18), 1994

              Reported by Mr. Hollings, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
               coastwise trade for the vessel ENDEAVOUR.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, and 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as 
applicable on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with 
appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the 
vessel ENDEAVOUR (United States official number 947869).
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 587

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2318

                          [Report No. 103-345]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
               coastwise trade for the vessel ENDEAVOUR.

_______________________________________________________________________

              August 19 (legislative day, August 18), 1994

                       Reported without amendment
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-30095

IN RE: DEEPWATER HORIZON — APPEALS OF THE ECONOMIC AND 

PROPERTY DAMAGE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

Before DAVIS, GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:

The petition for panel rehearing is denied. The majority of the panel 

notes its complete agreement with the reasoning set forth in Judge Southwick’s 

order on petition for panel rehearing in In re Deepwater Horizon, No. 13-30315.

Judge Garza dissents from the denial of panel rehearing for the reasons 

stated in his panel dissent of January 10, 2014, In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 

F.3d 790, 821-29 (5th Cir. 2014) (Garza, J., dissenting), and the dissent from 

the court’s denial of rehearing en banc.

DENIED.

 Case: 13-30095 Document: 00512635469 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2014
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terry Pressley, Appellant.

[61 NYS3d 882]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), entered on or about February 23, 2015, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly assessed 15 points under the risk factor for alcohol abuse. Such an assessment may be based on alcohol abuse at the time of the underlying sex crime *(People v Palmer,*20 NY3d 373, 378-379 [2013]). Here, the case summary and the victim’s grand jury testimony provided clear and convincing evidence that defendant committed the second of two sex offenses while intoxicated. In particular, the victim’s description of defendant’s condition and behavior supported the inference that the sex crime was linked to his excessive consumption of alcohol *(see People v Andrade,*124 AD3d 533 [1st Dept 2015], *lv denied*25 NY3d 903 [2015]).

Assuming, without deciding, that the state and federal standards for effective assistance at a criminal trial apply to a civil sex offender proceeding *(see People v Reid,*59 AD3d 158 [1st Dept 2009], *lv denied*12 NY3d 708 [2009]), we conclude that defendant received effective assistance at the classification hearing. Defendant has not shown that he was prejudiced by his attorney’s failure to make additional arguments at the hearing. We also find no basis for a downward departure *(see generally People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d 841 [2014]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Gesmer and Singh, JJ.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 27, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20-239 Lower Tribunal No. 16-32472

________________ 

### Jacqueline Archange, Appellant,

vs. 

### Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mavel Ruiz, Judge. Max A. Goldfarb, for appellant. Kubicki Draper, P.A., and Barbara E. Fox, for appellee.
Before EMAS, C.J., and LOGUE and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Perrin v. De Soleil S. Beach Ass’n, 305 So. 3d 598, 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“[O]rder enforcing settlement based on nonjury finding on disputed evidence is reviewed on appeal for competent, substantial evidence because lower court is in best position to evaluate and weigh testimony and evidence based upon its observation of bearing, demeanor, and credibility of witnesses.” (citing Fratangelo v. Coosemans, 264 So. 3d 1079, 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“When the trial court conducts a full evidentiary hearing on a motion to enforce settlement, ‘[t]he findings of the trial court, as the trier of fact, come to this court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and where there is substantial competent evidence to sustain the actions of the trial court, the appellate court cannot substitute its opinion on the evidence but rather must indulge every fact and inference in support of the trial court’s judgment, which is the equivalent of a jury verdict.’” (quoting Smiley v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 704 So. 2d 204, 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998))))).
No. 09-10924.

#### David L. Guest, Petitioner v. George M. Hinkle, Warden.

562 U.S. 856, 131 S. Ct. 120,

178 L. Ed. 2d 74,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6003.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 357 Fed. Appx. 554.