alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16289]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[UT-942-4212-13; UTU-51891]


Classification Termination and Opening Order; Utah

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice terminates a R&PP classification and provides for 
a opening order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael L. Crocker, Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, 324 
South State Street, P.O. Box 45155, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-0155, 
801-539-4118.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 43 CFR 2740, the Bureau of Land 
Management hereby terminates the R&PP Classification UTU-51891 which 
involves the following described land:

Salt Lake Meridian

T. 36S., R. 11 E.,
    Sec. 20, Beginning at a point 42.2 feet South and 1655.4 feet 
West to the center of Section 20, T. 36 S., R. 11 E., Corner No. 1, 
thence South 72 deg. 12' 28'' East 748.9 feet to Corner No. 2, 
thence South 14 deg. 19' 33'' West 2405.5 feet to Corner No. 3, 
thence North 83 deg. 25' 16'' West 990.8 feet to Corner No. 4, 
thence North 19 deg. 30' 19'' East 2595.0 feet to the point of 
beginning.

    The area described contains 48.90 acres located in Garfield 
County.

    The classification provided for segregation of the lands from all 
forms of appropriation under the public land laws including location 
under the mining laws, but not the mineral leasing laws.
    At 8:00 a.m., on July 26, 1996, the lands described above will be 
opened to appropriation under the public land laws and location and 
entry under the general mining laws, subject to any valid existing 
rights, and the requirements of applicable laws, rules and regulations.

    Dated: June 19, 1996.
Teresa L. Catlin,
Chief, Branch of Lands and Minerals Operations.
[FR Doc. 96-16289 Filed 6-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 08-20517-03

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

AUGUSTIN MORALES-PEREZ,

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

All parties having signed a consent, on April 21, 2009, this Defendant was referred to

the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1(B) and 636(b)(3) for the

purpose of receiving Defendant’s offer of a plea of guilty. The Defendant, along with counsel,

appeared before me on April 21, 2009. In open court I examined the Defendant under oath,

confirmed the Defendant’s consent, and then advised and questioned the Defendant regarding

each of the inquiries prescribed by Rule 11(b) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE. Based upon the Defendant’s answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND 1) that

the Defendant is competent to tender a plea, 2) that Defendant’s plea was knowingly,

intelligently made, and 3) that the offense to which he pled is supported by an independent

basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense. Therefore, I have ordered

the preparation of a presentence investigation report.

1:08-cr-20517-TLL-CEB Doc # 94 Filed 04/22/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 285
II. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that subject to the Court’s

consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the FEDERAL RULES OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, the Defendant be adjudged guilty and have sentence imposed.

III. REVIEW

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and

Recommendation within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of

appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed.2d 435 (1985); Frontier Ins.

Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984

(6th Cir. 2005). The parties are advised that making some objections, but failing to raise

others, will not preserve all the objections a party may have to this Report and

Recommendation. McClanahan v. Comm’r of Social Security, 474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir.

2006); Frontier Ins. Co., 454 F.3d at 596-97. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of

any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: April 22, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Report and Recommendation was electronically filed this date, electronically

served on Shane Waller and Robert Betts, and served on District Judge Ludington in the traditional manner.

Date: April 22, 2009 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder

1:08-cr-20517-TLL-CEB Doc # 94 Filed 04/22/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 286
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

BROWN BARK III, L.P.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 08-CV-14509-DT

ONE MANAGEMENT, INC. and JERRY

WATHA,

Defendants.

/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL, IMPOSING COSTS,

AND ORDERING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A NOTICE

Before the court is Plaintiff Brown Bark III, L.P.’s (“Brown Bark’s”) unopposed

“Motion to Compel Answers to Discovery.” Plaintiff served Defendants One

Management, Inc. and Jerry Watha with its discovery requests on December 31, 2008. 

Defendants have not responded to the requests. Plaintiff contacted Defendants by

letter on March 10, 2009 in order to allow Defendants to stipulate to provide untimely

responses. Defendants did not respond to the letter. Plaintiff filed its current motion on

March 14, 2009. Defendants have not responded to the motion. Inasmuch as

Defendants have failed to dispute any of the contentions made in Plaintiff’s motion, the

court will grant the motion.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 provides that if a party does not timely

respond to discovery demands, and a motion to compel is granted, the court must

impose sanctions against the party or the party’s attorney. Here, the court finds the

bulk, if not all, of the delay is attributable to Defendants’ counsel. It is ultimately

counsel’s responsibility to ensure that discovery demands are timely returned and,

2:08-cv-14509-RHC-RSW Doc # 16 Filed 04/23/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 115
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\08-14509.BROWNBARK.GrantCompel.ShowCause.chd.wpd

2

certainly, counsel’s responsibility to respond to correspondence of opposing counsel as

well as to file timely responses to motions. Accordingly, the court will order Defendants’

counsel to pay Plaintiff’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s written discovery

requests by April 29, 2008. Additionally, Defendants shall file a notice with the court by

April 29, 2008 affirmatively stating that they have complied with this court’s order. In

the event Defendants fail to file the required notice, the court will issue a default

judgment against them in the amount of $ 697,733.35 plus any applicable interest

and fees as sought in the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ counsel shall pay to Plaintiff Brown

Bark reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred in filing its March 14, 2009 motion to

compel. The parties should attempt to stipulate to the amount of costs and fees, but if

they are unable to do so, Plaintiff shall file, no later than May 14, 2009, a bill of costs

and affidavit detailing its costs and fees for the court’s review. 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 23, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, April 23, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:08-cv-14509-RHC-RSW Doc # 16 Filed 04/23/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 116
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CR-18-422-PHX-SMB

ORDER

Based on the United States’ Motion For Leave To Exceed Page Limit, and good 

cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the Motion.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States’ Response to Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss Indictment, which was lodged with the Motion for Leave, shall be 

deemed properly filed.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 633-1 Filed 06/12/19 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 125 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16428]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster Loan Area #2852]


Illinois; Declaration of Disaster Loan Area (Amendment #4)

    In accordance with a notice from the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency dated June 14, 1996, the above-numbered Declaration is hereby 
amended to include Champaign County in the State of Illinois as a 
disaster area due to damages caused by severe storms and flooding 
beginning on April 28, 1996 and continuing through May 17, 1996.
    In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small 
businesses located in the contiguous counties of Ford and McLean in the 
State of Illinois may be filed until the specified date at the 
previously designated location.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the termination date 
for filing applications for physical damage is July 5, 1996, and for 
loans for economic injury the deadline is February 6, 1997.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008.)

    Dated: June 19, 1996.
Bernard Kulik,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 96-16428 Filed 6-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 Certification required by Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 CERTIFICATION I, David G. Elsley, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Vasogen;  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 issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.
    The issuers other certifying officers 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 issuer 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 issuer, 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 issuer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 issuers internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers
internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    The issuers other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the
audit committee of issuer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 issuer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 issuers internal control over financial reporting. Dated this 19th day of January, 2005. /s/ David G. Elsley

David G. Elsley
President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer),
Vasogen Inc.
1

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1057-1 Filed 09/11/20 Page 1 of 2
2

Attachment to Notice of Intent to Offer Records Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 902(11)

Certification(s) Range of Records

Subpoena # Financial 

Institution

or

Subpoenaed 

Party

BEGDOC PRODUCTION 

BEGATT

PRODUCTION 

ENDATT

R 18 09746 Stewart Title DOJ-BP0005070509DOJ-BP0005070459DOJ-BP0005070504

Trial 

Subpoena12/18/2019

CNN USAO-BP0001037USAO-BP0001037USAO-BP0001052

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1057-1 Filed 09/11/20 Page 2 of 2
exhibit1030.htm


    
      EXHIBIT
10.30

       

      SUMMARY
OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR

      NON-EMPLOYEE
DIRECTORS

       

      The
following is a summary of the standard compensation arrangements for the
non-employee members of the Board of Directors of St. Mary Land &
Exploration Company (the “Company”) for 2008.

       

      For
service for the fiscal period from May 22, 2008, through approximately May 20,
2009, the total annual target base compensation for each non-employee
director  is $160,000.  The non-executive Chairman of the
Board receives an additional $60,000 retainer for his service as Chairman,
making his total annual compensation $220,000.  This base compensation
is in the form of restricted stock.  The market price on the date of
grant determines the number of shares that are issued to the
director.  The grants vest over the one-year Board service period and
carry a one-year holding period restriction following the expiration of the
vesting period as imposed by the Company.  In addition to the base
compensation, the Board members are paid meeting attendance fees and committee
chairpersons are paid an additional cash retainer.

       

      The
meeting attendance fees paid to the non-employee directors is as
follows:

       

      1.           Payment
of $750 for each Board meeting attended.

       

      2.   Directors serving
on a committee are paid $600 for each committee meeting attended and $375 for
each telephonic committee meeting.

       

      3.   Directors are
reimbursed for expenses incurred in attanding Board and committee
meetings.

       

      The
committee chairs will receive the following cash payments in recognition of the
additional workload of their respective committee assignments.  These
amounts are to be paid at the beginning of the annual service
period.

       

      1.           Audit
Committee - $15,000

       

      2.           Compensation
Committee - $10,000

       

      3.           Nominating
and Corporate Governance Committee - $5,000
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 43 Filed 04/09/18 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 43 Filed 04/09/18 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 43 Filed 04/09/18 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 43 Filed 04/09/18 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 43 Filed 04/09/18 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 43 Filed 04/09/18 Page 6 of 6
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DAMAGE SERVICES, INC. a/a/o GNH REAL ESTATE,

Appellant,

v.

CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-604

[October 13, 2021]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Florence Taylor Barner and Jennifer Hilal, Judges; L.T. 

Case Nos. COCE19-007411 and CACE20-11788.

William J. Roe and Nirav A. Desai of the Law Office of William J. Roe, 

P.A., Aventura, for appellant.

Patricia M. Rego Chapman of Dean, Ringers, Morgan & Lawton, P.A., 

Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm a final summary judgment in favor of Citizens Property 

Insurance Corporation (“Citizens”) and against Damage Services, Inc. 

(“DSI”), an assignee of benefits from an insured of Citizens.

DSI sued Citizens for breach of contract for failing to pay DSI for its 

water extraction services due to a flooding event at Citizens’ insured’s 

property. The insured’s policy provided in Coverage G4 that it would not 

pay more than $3,000 for emergency measures to protect the property, 

unless a request to exceed the amount was made and approval was given 

by Citizens. DSI failed to make a request to exceed that limit in accordance 

with the policy terms.

In Certified Priority Restoration v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., ---

So. 3d ----, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1546, 2021 WL 2673368 (Fla. 4th DCA 

June 30, 2021), we addressed the same policy provision for this insurer 

and held that “the clear wording of the policy established a reimbursement 

cap on expenses for emergency measures which could not be exceeded 
2

without a request to, and prior approval from, the insurer.” Because DSI 

did not make a request to exceed the policy limit prior to exceeding the 

limit for the work performed, we affirm.

DSI alternatively argues that it could recover under Coverage A of the 

policy, which insures against direct loss to the property, because its 

invoice was for water extraction and remediation. It argues that 

remediation can be for improvement to the property and thus not within 

the emergency measure policy provisions.

However, we conclude that the court did not err in rejecting DSI’s claim. 

DSI’s complaint described its work as “water extraction” and not as any 

type of repair. No affidavit was filed by DSI to show that it had performed 

work other than water extraction. Most importantly, in the assignment of 

benefits contract, the insured assigned to DSI only its right to payment “in 

regards to water extraction and dry out services, mold remediation, and/or 

smoke damage.” To the extent that DSI performed other services, it was 

not assigned the right to collect payments from Citizens for that work, 

including any work done under Coverage A. Repayment for the damage to 

the property under Coverage A, if any, would be made to the insured, not 

DSI.

For these reasons, we affirm the final summary judgment on these 

grounds. We affirm as to all other issues raised.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GERBER and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 11, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29543-29544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14656]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-67-002]


Mojave Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

June 5, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 31, 1996, Mojave Pipeline Company (Mojave) 
tendered for filing certain tariff sheets in compliance with the 
Commission's orders issued in the above proceeding on December 29, 1995 
and May 17, 1996. In particular, Mojave tendered for filing as part of 
its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff 
sheets, to become effective January 1, 1996:

Substitute Seventh Revised Sheet No. 11
Substitute Sheet No. 58
Substitute Sheet No. 63
First Revised Sheet No. 117
First Revised Sheet No. 118
Substitute Sheet No. 137
Substitute Sheet No. 144

    Mojave states that Substitute Seventh Revised Sheet No. 11 includes 
an Imbalance Trading Marketing Fee, with a maximum level of $0.02/MMBtu 
and a minimum level of $0.00/MMBtu, in the Schedule of Rates for 
services provided by Mojave.
    Mojave states that Substitute Sheet No. 58 contains provisions 
making the availability of Authorized Loan Service under Rate Schedule 
ALS-1 subject to the user or shipper having an executed Authorized Loan 
Service Agreement and an executed firm or interruptible service 
agreement with Mojave. Substitute Sheet No. 63 contains provisions 
making the availability of Authorized Parking Service under Rate 
Schedule APS-1 subject to the user or shipper having an executed 
Authorized Parking Service Agreement and an executed firm or 
interruptible service agreement with Mojave.
    Mojave states that First Revised Sheet Nos. 117 and 118 revise the 
General Terms and Conditions of Mojave's Tariff to provide that 
Authorized Loan Service and Authorized Parking Service have the lowest 
service priority for purposes of scheduling of deliveries, and have the 
lowest priority for purposes of curtailment of deliveries.
    Mojave states that Substitute sheet Nos. 137 and 144 reflect the 
deletion of Section 1.3 of the Form of Service Agreement applicable to 
Authorized Loan Service and providing for reimbursement of filing fees.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public

[[Page 29544]]

inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-14656 Filed 6-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
laDmamentams

withdraw his guilty plea. See Molina v. State, 120 Nev. 185, 191, 87 P.3d 533, 537-38 (2004) ("A thorough plea canvass coupled with a detailed, consistent, written plea agreement supports a finding that the defendant entered the plea voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently." (internal quotation marks omitted)).'

Young also asserts that the sentence imposed constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. 2 Young's sentence of 48 to 120 months in prison is within the parameters of NRS 205.067(2), he does not allege that the statute is unconstitutional, and we are not convinced that the sentence imposed is so disproportionate to the gravity of the offense as to shock the conscience. See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01 (1991) (plurality opinion); Blume v. State, 112 Nev. 472, 475, 915 P.2d 282, 284 (1996). Therefore, we conclude that the sentence does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, and we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Hardesty 

# pc Parraguirre

1 To the extent Young asserts that his plea was not knowingly entered because he was not aware of the consequences of habitual criminal treatment, he did not raise this claim in the district court and we decline to address it on appeal in the first instance. O'Guinn v. State, 118 Nev. 849, 851, 59 P.3d 488, 489-90 (2002). Further, we note that the district court declined to adjudicate Young as a habitual criminal.

2 District Judge Linda Marie Bell imposed Young's sentence.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 4 , 67AE>

### cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge Hon. Linda Marie Bell, District Judge Law Offices of Martin Hart, LLC Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 

### 3
(0) 1947A