alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

RE: Charles Mendoza Case Number20-10274 -RAM

TRUSTEE'S NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY FOR CONFIRMATION AND RECOMMENDATION

The Trustee reviewed this case and found the following deficiencies remain unresolved from the Trustee’s letter

requesting documents and prior deficiencies and thus objects as follows (If this case is dismissed, this deficiency

is an objection to reinstatement until all documents are received or all issues are addressed): 

WRITTEN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED AND/OR DOCUMENTS REQUESTED MUST BE RECEIVED

BY 5PM AT LEAST FIFTEEN DAYS (NOT INCLUDING HOLIDAYS) PRIOR TO THE CONFIRMATION

HEARING TO AVOID DISMISSAL. Please note: documents that were not timelyfiled/received bythe trustee may

not be considered as there is not sufficient time for an additional review of this case. Call the Trustee's case

administration department prior to “re-sending” documents. The Trustee reserves the right to raise additional

objections UNTIL all documents are timely provided to the Trustee and reviewed for possible issues raised and

additional documents needed. 

The debtor or debtor’s attorney must appear at the confirmation hearing even if they pre-hear with the Trustee. 

The debtor may be dismissed for failure to fund the plan if they are delinquent in payments. The Court may

dismiss this case if no one appears to represent the debtor at the confirmation hearing.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: IF THE DEBTOR(S) OBJECTS TO THE TRUSTEE'S RECOMMENDATION, THE

DEBTOR'S ATTORNEY MUST CONTACT THE TRUSTEE'S OFFICE AND SPEAK TO AN ATTORNEY

BEFORE 2PM THE LAST BUSINESS DAY PRIOR TO THE CONFIRMATION HEARING TO SEEK A

RESOLUTION OR THE RECOMMENDATION WILL BE DEEMED UNCONTESTED BY THE DEBTOR. 

===============================================================================

Recommendation for May 12, 2020 hearing. All amendments and documents for the May 12, 2020 hearing

were due as of April 26, 2020. (Call the Trustee's case administration department prior to "re-sending"

documents) REVIEWED April 26, 2020

2AP served 3/17

If Counsel for the Debtor(s) appear at confirmation, confirms service and agrees on the record

: 

If objection to Claim sustained, Confirm 2 A Plan

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served through ECF on the debtor’s attorney or by U.S. First Class

pre-paid Mail on the pro se debtor on the same day filed with the Court.

Submitted by 

NANCY K. NEIDICH, ESQ, STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

P.O. BOX 279806, MIRAMAR, FL 33027, (954) 443-4402

****The Trustee objects to the appearance of coverage counsel if her recommendation is contested****

Case 20-10274-RAM Doc 37 Filed 05/06/20 Page 1 of 1
November 13, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JONATHAN ALBERT LEAL, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00208-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The 

record reveals error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment REVERSED 

and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion.

We order THE STATE OF TEXAS to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Case 20-14645-AJC Doc 27 Filed 06/09/20 Page 1 of 2
Case 20-14645-AJC Doc 27 Filed 06/09/20 Page 2 of 2
1

The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1396

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Juan Malagon-Avila, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED] 

Appellant. *

__________

Submitted: November 16, 2009

Filed: December 4, 2009

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Juan Malagon-Avila (Malagon-Avila) pled guilty to reentering the United

States illegally after a prior deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The

district court1

 sentenced Malagon-Avila to 12 months imprisonment for his crime.

Malagon-Avila appeals his sentence.

Malagon-Avila argues the district court abused its discretion by (1) failing

adequately to explain the reasons for choosing his sentence, and (2) ignoring the
-2-

disparity between his sentence and the sentences of similarly situated defendants.

Malagon-Avila stresses the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines)

recommended a sentence between 0 and 6 months imprisonment. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Feemster,

572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (setting forth standard of review). The

record reveals the district court explained, with sufficient specificity, the reasons for

the sentence the court imposed. The district court emphasized Malagon-Avila’s

extensive criminal record, reflecting arrests in thirteen different states, and use of

thirty-one aliases, ten phony dates of birth, and nine bogus social security numbers.

See United States v. Barrett, 552 F.3d 724, 726-27 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) permits courts to vary upward based on recidivism or underrepresented

criminal history); United States v. Marquez-Pineda, 318 F. App’x 673, 675 (10th Cir.

2009) (holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in varying upward to a

sentence twice the defendant’s Guidelines range, in part because the defendant used

more than thirty aliases, sixteen dates of birth, and five social security numbers). We

cannot say the district court’s reliance upon these relevant facts, which Malagon-Avila

does not dispute, resulted in an unreasonable sentence.

We find no indication the district court ignored any possible sentencing

disparity between Malagon-Avila’s sentence and the sentences of similarly situated

defendants. To the contrary, the district court stated on the record at Malagon-Avila’s

sentencing hearing that it considered all of the § 3553(a) factors in arriving at his

sentence. Nothing more was required. See Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461 (stating district

courts need not “‘provide a mechanical recitation of the § 3553(a) factors when

determining a sentence’” (quoting United States v. Walking Eagle, 553 F.3d 654, 659

(8th Cir. 2009))).

 

We affirm.

______________________________
EX-10.27



 EXHIBIT 10.27 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 
 WORTHINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. 

AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 2003 STOCK OPTION PLAN 
 This Second Amendment (this
“Amendment”) to the Worthington Industries, Inc. Amended and Restated 2003 Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”) is adopted effective June 28, 2017. 

WHEREAS, Section 13 of the Plan permits the Board of Directors of Worthington (the “Board”) to amend the
Plan at any time without shareholder approval, unless shareholder approval is required to satisfy applicable requirements imposed by (a) Rule 16b-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (or any successor rule or
regulation), (b) applicable requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or (c) the rules of the securities exchange on which Worthington’s securities are listed or traded; and 

WHEREAS, shareholder approval is not required for this Amendment; 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 

1. Section 14(d) of the Plan, “Withholding”, is hereby amended by the addition of the
following: 
 The authority provided in this tax withholding section includes authority to
determine the amounts to be withheld (including Shares or other portions of Awards) in satisfaction of a Participant’s or former Participant’s withholding obligations, or in satisfaction of other tax obligations, either on a mandatory or
elective basis, as permitted in the discretion of the Committee. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Worthington has caused
this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of the date first set forth above. 
  

			
	 WORTHINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Dale T. Brinkman

		 	Dale T. Brinkman, Vice President – Administration, General Counsel and Secretary
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Triton's surface-atmosphere energy balance      

      January 1, 1992    

We explore the energetics of Triton's surface-atmosphere system using a model that includes the turbulent transfer of sensible heat as well as insolation, reradiation, and latent heat transport. The model relies on a 1° by 1° resolution hemispheric bolometric albedo map of Triton for determining the atmospheric temperature, the N2 frost emissivity, and the temperatures of unfrosted portions of the surface consistent with a frost temperature of ≅38 K. For a physically plausible range of heat transfer coefficients, we find that the atmospheric temperature roughly 1 km above the surface is approximately 1 to 3 K hotter than the surface. Atmospheric temperatures of 48 K suggested by early analysis of radio occultation data cannot be obtained for plausible values of the heat transfer coefficients. Our calculations indicate that Triton's N2 frosts must have an emissivity well below unity in order to have a temperature of ≅38 K, consistent with previous results. We also find that convection over small hot spots does not significantly cool them off, so they may be able to act as continous sources of buoyancy for convective plumes, but have not explored whether the convection is vigorous enough to entrain particulate matter thereby forming a dust devil. Our elevated atmospheric temperatures make geyser driven plumes with initial upward velocities ≤10 m s−1 stagnate in the lower atmosphere. These “wimpy” plumes provide a possible explanation for Triton's “wind streaks.”

## Citation Information
SERVED JULY 14,2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

ORIGINAL PRODUCTIONS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10AL0002 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS NO. FAA-2010-0621 

1 'il l I'ji' i 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2009AL700099) has been assigned to 

Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 

Ronnie A. YQ 

Chief Administra 
FAA Docket No. CP10AL0002 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

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' 

ONE COPY 

Charles M. Finkel, Respondent's Counsel 

Magafta, Cathcart & McCarthy 

1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600 

Los Angeles, CA 90067 

TEL: 310-553-6630 

FAX: 310-407-2295 

Lierre Green, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Western-Pacific Region, AWP-7.6 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 920007 

Los Angeles, CA 92007 

TEL: 310-725-7117 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor 

RoomE12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202 366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
MEMORANDUM

DATE: July 28, 2015

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR-2013-0602

FROM: Jeremy Schreifels, EPA Office of Air and Radiation

SUBJECT: July 28, 2015, meeting with Center for the New Energy Economy on registries for the 

proposed Clean Power Plan for existing sources

SUMMARY

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on July 28, 2015 to discuss the 

external stakeholders’ interests in registry systems to facilitate state-level implementation of the Clean 

Power Plan. The proposed Clean Power Plan for existing power plants was proposed on June 2, 2014 and 

published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2014.

ATTENDEES

External Stakeholders

Dennis Arfmann, Center for a New Energy Economy (CNEE)

Jeff Lyng, CNEE

Patrick Cummins, CNEE

EPA

Abby Fulton, EPA Region 8

Michael Heese, EPA HQ

Jeremy Schreifels, EPA HQ
Case 20-21883-SMG    Doc 150-3    Filed 03/09/21    Page 1 of 1
# FILED
June 2, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON JUNE 1998 SESSION
VICTOR THOMPSON, ) ) Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9802-CR-00056 ) vs. ) SHELBY COUNTY ) STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) No. P-12933 ) Respondent. )

O R D E R
This case represents an appeal from the dismissal of the petitioner’s second petition for post-conv iction relief. In 1992, the peti tioner pled guilty to second degree murder and aggra vated assault and receiv ed a fifty year sentence. N o appeal apparently was taken. The petitioner, by and throug h counsel, subsequently filed a petition for post-convic

tion relief. The trial cour t denied the petition after conducti ng an evidentiary hearing . This Court affirmed the denial on appeal, Victor Th ompson v. State , No. 02C01-9509-CR-00 256 (Tenn. Cr

im. App., Jul

y 25, 1997), and the Supre me Court denied permission to ap peal on October 27, 1997.

On January 9, 1998, the petiti oner filed his second petition for postconviction relief. Fi nding that the petitioner had previously filed a pet ition for postconviction which w

as heard and resolved on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction, the tri al court dismissed the petition without appointment of counsel or an evidentiary hearin g.

T.C.A. § 40-30-202(c) prov ides that no more than one petition for postconviction relief may be filed attacking a sing le judgment, and mandates that the tr ial court shall summarily

dismiss any second or s ubsequent petition if a prior petition was filed and resolved on the meri ts by a court of competent jur isdiction. Since the petitioner previously

filed a petition that was r esolved on the merits by the trial court and2

by this Court on appeal, the petitioner's present peti tion was properly dismissed. Additionally, after reviewing the entire record on appeal, we find that the petitioner’s claim does not fall withi n one of the limited circumstances under which a prior petition may be re-opened. See T.C.A. § 40-30-217.

Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in summarily dismissing the petitioner ’s petition for post-conv iction relief. According ly, it is hereby ORDERED that the judgment o f the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20 , Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. It appearing the pe titioner is indigent, costs of this appeal shall be taxed to the state.
Enter, this the ___ day of June, 1998.

__________________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUD GE

__________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE

__________________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
* 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. 98-40667

Summary Calendar

 

MICHAEL J. FRISCHENMEYER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CASSANDRA WOOD ET. AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:97-CV-964

- - - - - - - - - -

July 14, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael J. Frischenmeyer, Texas prisoner no. 698940, appeals

the magistrate judge’s order dismissing, as frivolous, his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985 prisoner civil rights suit. We affirm for

substantially the reasons stated by the magistrate judge.

Frischenmeyer v. Wood, 6:97-CV-964 (E.D. Tex. May 5, 1998).

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13132-13133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X98-10318]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 61

[CC Docket No. 96-187; FCC 97-23]


Implementation of Section 402(b)(1)(a) of the Telecommunications 
Act of 1996 (Tariff Streamlining Provisions for Local Exchange 
Carriers)

CFR Correction

    In title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 40 to 69, 
revised as of October 1, 1997, on pages 131 and 132, paragraphs (e), 
(1), and (2) should be redesignated to paragraphs (f), (1), and (2), 
and paragraph (e) redesignated from paragraph (d) at 62 FR 5778, Feb. 
7, 1997, should be reinstated to read as follows:

[[Page 13133]]

Sec. 61.58  [Corrected]

* * * * *
    (e) Other carriers. (1) Tariff filings in the instances specified 
in paragraphs (d)(1) (i), (ii), and (iii) of this section must be made 
on at least 15 days' notice.
    (i) Tariffs filed in the first instance by new carriers.
    (ii) Tariffs filings involving new rates and regulations not 
previously filed at, from, to or via points on new lines; at, from to 
or via new radio facilities; or for new points of radio communication.
    (iii) Tariff filings involving a change in the name of a carrier, a 
change in Vertical and Horizontal coordinates (or other means used to 
determine airline mileages), a change in the lists of mileages, a 
change in the lists of connecting, concurring or other participating 
carriers, text changes, or the imposition of termination charges 
calculated from effective tariff provisions. The imposition of 
termination charges does not include the initial filing of termination 
liability provisions.
    (2) Tariff filings involving a change in rate structure, a new 
service offering, or a rate increase must be made on at least 45 days' 
notice.
    (3) All tariff filings not specifically assigned a different period 
of public notice in this part must be made on at least 35 days' notice.
* * * * *

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4880 

To prohibit any regulation, rule, guidance, recommendation, or policy issued 

after May 15, 2015, that limits the sale or donation of excess property 

of the Federal Government to State and local agencies for law enforcement activities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 23, 2016 

Mr. RATCLIFFE (for himself, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. OLSON, Mr. 

FARENTHOLD, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. SAM

JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. HURT of Virginia, Mr. MCCAUL, 

Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. BARR, and Mr. MEADOWS) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently 

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit any regulation, rule, guidance, recommendation, 

or policy issued after May 15, 2015, that limits the 

sale or donation of excess property of the Federal Government to State and local agencies for law enforcement 

activities, and for other purposes. 

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


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4880 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Lives Using 

3 Surplus Equipment Act of 2016’’. 

4 SEC. 2. GENERAL PROHIBITION. 

5 No regulation, rule, guidance, recommendation, or 

6 policy issued after May 15, 2015, that limits the sale or 

7 donation of excess property of the Federal Government, 

8 including excess property of the Department of Defense, 

9 to State and local agencies for law enforcement activities 

10 (whether pursuant to section 2576a of title 10, United 

11 States Code, or any other provision of law, or as a condi12 tion on the use of Federal funds) shall have any force or 

13 effect unless enacted into law by Congress. 

14 SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON FEDERAL FUNDS. 

15 No agency or instrumentality of the Federal Govern16 ment may use any Federal funds, fees, or resources to im17 plement such regulation, rule, guidance, recommendation, 

18 or policy. 

19 SEC. 4. RETURN OR REISSUE OF EQUIPMENT RECALLED 

20 OR SEIZED. 

21 Any property recalled or seized on or after May 15, 

22 2015, pursuant to a regulation, rule, guidance, rec23 ommendation, or policy described in section 1 shall be re24 turned, replaced, or re-issued to the State or local agency 

25 from which it was recalled or seized, at no cost to such 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4880 IH

1 agency, as soon as practicable after the date of the enact2 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<page> EXHIBIT 32.02



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Morgan Stanley Spectrum
Currency L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Christian
Angstadt, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management
Corporation, the general partner of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:
(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 Partnership.









By: /s/ Christian Angstadt

Name:	   Christian Angstadt
Title:  Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management Corporation,
	   the general partner of the Partnership

Date:   May 15, 2008
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 16, 2020.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1576

Lower Tribunal No. 07-11754

________________

Alexander L. Green,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the 

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Teresa Mary Pooler, Judge.

Alexander L. Green, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY, and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.