alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRANDI M. HOPKINS,, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-00436-N

)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This action is before the Court on a motion (doc. 13) filed by the defendant, the

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §

405(g), to enter a judgment with a remand to the Commissioner for further administrative

proceedings. It is the Commissioner’s professed intent that, on remand, the Appeals

Council will refer the case to an Administrative Law Judge for application of the special

technique described in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a and 416.920a in evaluating Plaintiff’s

functional limitations resulting from her bipolar disorder. The Court is advised that the

plaintiff has no objection to this requested relief. This action has been referred to the

undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings and order the entry of judgment

in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R.Civ.Pro.73 (doc. 15) and pursuant to

the consent of the parties (doc. 14). 

In light of the foregoing, and the plain language of sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §

405(g) empowering this Court “to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a

Case 1:09-cv-00436-N Document 16 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 2
2

judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social

Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing[,]” it is ORDERED that

the Commissioner’s unopposed motion is hereby GRANTED and that the

Commissioner’s decision in this case is hereby REVERSED and the case REMANDED

pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further administrative proceedings. 

See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 90 (1991). The remand pursuant to sentence

four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) makes the plaintiff a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal

Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and terminates this Court’s jurisdiction over this

matter. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 298 (1993). 

Done this 5th day of January, 2010.

/s/ KATHERINE P. NELSON 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-00436-N Document 16 Filed 01/05/10 Page 2 of 2
11078.

#### Ficken *v.*Bank of Cerro Gordo.

Stephens, J.

1. “ Savings- institutions which pay interest to depositors, and whose deposits are not subject to check,” are “ authorized to lend money to persons not members thereof, nor shareholders therein at eight per cent, or less, and to aggregate the principal and interest at the date of the loan for the entire period of the loan, and to divide the sum of the principal and the interest for the entire period of the loan into monthly or other installments,” and to take security therefor, etc., as provided in the Civil Code (1910), §§ 2881, 2878.

2. The notes sued on in- the instant case, having been given for money borrowed from such a savings institution, and being in payment of the principal and interest thereon calculated at eight per cent., in *645accordance with the plan permitted in the code sections referred to, and payable in monthly installments, are not subject to the defense that they are infected with usury.

Decided September 17, 1920.

Complaint; from city court of WayerosS'—-Judge Crawley. March 20, 1919.

Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.

*A. B. Spence, W. W. Bennett,*for plaintiff in error.

J. *L. Sweat,*contra.

3. The assignment of error in the bill of exceptions, that the verdict directed is contrary to law because the suit was, as to some of the notes, prematurely brought, cannot be considered, since no defense upon this ground was made in the lower court, either by demurrer or plea.

4. The evidence establishing the character of the institution from which the money was borrowed was properly admitted. Under all the evidence introduced, a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum sued for. was demanded and was properly directed.

5. Damages for delay are denied.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*
! " #$%&' !
!
(! )*"*" 


#(+,-,,-+,	+$,$#	,

.


//////////"//////////

#

"0
















$"
(1

#(1


*2 0
1


!
 "0

2 0
1

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

	
	


	




#30 .


 .

.
4 
 !"" .
  
#$

%&'
 .

003"0
03"
)"
 
*
"


.."

" )"
5 
*6)

*7

0


)6.
#

"

$00""3 " #$

%88 9."

" .09: .
3*6"
0
"
.#;%4


.
"

""
.#$%&''&9.

<
..
6
33*)*
9

		..
0"1

-(+- ;	(,-.


="3
 "*603"
"


03"0
(as reflected in 

the last judgment issued)  0." ! "# 

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

		$


-<
3".
7"
3
9**3"".
> 0

 ".**
0



		



1

Judge’s signature

-


1

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

JEFFREY SHANE PARKER 09-00161-CG

10733-003

03-23-2010

Pro Se

✔

✔

147 130 months

03-23-2010

08-18-2016

Callie V. S. Granade, Senior U.S. District Judge

This amended sentence consists of 70 months on Count One and 60 months on Count Two, to be served consecutively

to the 70 months on Count One.

Callie V. S. Granade 

Senior U.S. District Judge

Digitally signed by Callie V. S. Granade Senior U.S. District Judge 

DN: cn=Callie V. S. Granade Senior U.S. District Judge, o=Federal 

Judiciciary, ou=U.S. Government, 

email=efile_granade@alsd.uscourts.gov, c=US 

Date: 2016.08.18 16:22:29 -05'00'

Case 1:09-cr-00161-CG-C Document 38 Filed 08/18/16 Page 1 of 1
Handbook 130 – 2024 Appendix B. 2023 Amendments

319

Appendix B. 2023 Amendments

The following table lists the laws and regulations amended by the 108th National Conference on Weights and 

Measures (NCWM). As appropriate, the text on the cited pages indicates the changes to the law or regulation, 

section, or paragraph as “Added 2023” or “Amended 2023.” Unless otherwise noted, the effective date of the 

regulations added or amended in 2023 is January 1, 2024. 

Law or Regulation

L&R

Committee

Item No.

Section Action Page

III. Uniform Laws

A. Uniform Weights and 

Measures Law

WAM 11.(s) Powers and Duties of the 

Director.

Added 22

B. Uniform Weighmaster 

Law

WML-23.1 10. Certificate: Required Entries. Amended 33

IV. Uniform Regulations

A. Uniform Packaging 

and Labeling Regulation

Block 3. 

B3: PAL-22.2

10.11. Cannabis and CannabisContaining Products.Added 80

B. Uniform Regulation for 

the Method of Sale of 

Commodities

MOS-23.3 1.12. Ready-to-Eat Food. Amended 112

Block 3

B3: MOS-22.2

1.14. Cannabis and CannabisContaining Products and 2.41. 

Cannabis and Cannabis-Containing 

Products.

Added 115

Block 2

B2:MOS-23.2

2.20. Gasoline and GasolineOxygenate Blends.Amended 131

MOS-20.5 2.21. Liquefied Petroleum Gas. Amended 131

MOS-23.4 2.34. Retail of Electricity Sold. Amended 138

C. Uniform Unit Pricing 

Regulation UPR-23.1 2. Terms for Unit Pricing. Amended 155

F. Uniform Fuels and 

Automotive Lubricants 

Regulation

Block 3

B2: FLR-23.2

3.2. Automotive Gasoline and 

Automotive Gasoline-Oxygenate 

Blends (Including Racing Gasoline).

Amended 195

Block 2: B2: 

FLR-23.2

3.2.5. Product Transfer Document 

(PTD) Requirements.

Amended 196

FLR-23.4 4.3. Dispenser Filters. Amended 207

G. Uniform E-commerce 

Regulation

Block 4

B4: OTH-22.1

Uniform E-Commerce Regulation Added 211
Appendix B. 2023 Amendments Handbook 130 – 2024 

320

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
JASON GREEN

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 4200

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 21, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County

. Robert Groeb , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Barbara J. Busharis, Assistant Public

Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Angela R. Hensel, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, WETHERELL, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 22, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30204

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PAUL EDWARD RHEA, also known as Carlos Olmedo,

also known as Country,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 02-CR-50045-ALL

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Paul Edward Rhea, a/k/a Carlos Olmedo, a/k/a Country,

appeals his sentence following a guilty plea for distribution of

five grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1). Rhea argues that under the reasoning of Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), his base offense level for

sentencing purposes should have been determined with reference

only to the drug quantity alleged in count one of his indictment,
No. 03-30204

-2-

the count to which he pleaded guilty. Rhea acknowledges that his

argument is foreclosed by this court’s precedent but raises it to

preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review. 

Rhea does not dispute that his 135-month prison term and

five-year term of supervised release are within the statutory

maximum for his offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii); 18

U.S.C. §§ 3559(a)(2), 3583(b)(1). Because Rhea’s sentence is

within the statutory maximum, Apprendi is not implicated. See

United States v. Fort, 248 F.3d 475, 483 (5th Cir. 2001)

(Apprendi not implicated where sentence was within relevant range

for drug quantity alleged in indictment and stipulated to by

defendant). This court “has expressly rejected the argument that

Apprendi applies to enhancements based upon the sentencing

guidelines, whether tied to quantity or some other relevant fact,

which do not cause the sentence to exceed the statutory range.” 

United States v. Clinton, 256 F.3d 311, 314 (5th Cir. 2001) (jury

trial). 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          63,818
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  111,109
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     83,532
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               291,582
<PP&E>                                         926,929
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,482
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             139,208,533
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,004,572
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       242,236
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,577,983
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               139,208,533
<SALES>                                         13,881
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               536,212
<CGS>                                            7,182
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  316,046 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              82,053 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                123,931 
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            123,931 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   123,931
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
#### Forrest G. AUBREY, Jr., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Appellee.

No. 00-3180.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 5, 2001.

Decided June 7, 2001.

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

*401PER CURIAM.

Forrest G. Aubrey, Jr. appeals the District Court’s1 order dismissing his action under the Black Lung Benefits Act (Act). Aubrey initially applied for benefits under the Act on January 20, 1976. He was subsequently awarded benefits, payable by the Black Lung Disability Benefits Trust Fund (Fund), as of February 1995. Aubrey’s date of entitlement was then modified three times, resulting in three separate additional awards of back benefits. In the instant action Aubrey seeks interest on two of the awards of back benefits, and claims additional damages based on the delay in awarding benefits, alleging that the Department of Labor withheld and used his money while it denied him benefits to which it knew he was entitled.

Having conducted de novo review, we conclude that the District Court properly dismissed Aubrey’s complaint. *See*30 U.S.C. § 922 (1994) (describing benefits payable under Act); 30 U.S.C. § 932(a) (1994) (incorporating 33 U.S.C. § 921 into Act); 33 U.S.C. § 921(d) (1994) (district court’s jurisdiction is limited to enforcing final awards to beneficiaries); *Greene v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, U.S. Dep’t of Labor,*892 F.2d 1385, 1387 (8th Cir.1990) (order amending judgment and awarding attorneys fees) (deleting from prior court order award of interest for period of time when benefits under Act were withheld, citing 20 C.F.R. § 725.608(d) and “longstanding law” that interest against U.S. instrumentality is not permitted unless specifically authorized by statute); 20 C.F.R. § 725.608(d) (2000) (Fund shall be hable for payment of interest only on advances from United States Treasury).

Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         375,269
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  807,579
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,641,228
<PP&E>                                       5,006,071
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,007,087
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,117,018
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,675,747
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       241,945
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,518,694
<OTHER-SE>                                  (4,914,076)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,117,018
<SALES>                                      4,423,531
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,423,531
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,825,704
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,451,451
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             283,059
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                880,258
<INCOME-TAX>                                   299,287
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            580,971
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   580,971
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
**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**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CaliforniaCoastal Communities, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in their respectivecapacity as an officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tothe best of their respective knowledge, that:

 

·                  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

·                  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| Dated:  August 7, 2009                        |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                               |   |
| /s/ Raymond J.  Pacini                             |   |
| Raymond J.  Pacini                                 |   |
| Chief Executive  Officer                           |   |
|                                               |   |
| /s/ Sandra G.  Sciutto                             |   |
| Sandra G.  Sciutto                                 |   |
| Senior Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THOMAS C. WELLER, JR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO.: CV-08-240-CG-C

)

VAN P. FINGER, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER DIRECTING DEPOSIT INTO INTEREST-BEARING ACCOUNT

The court having considered the motion of Van P. Finger to allow the defendant to pay

into court, without prejudice, the sum of $400,000.00 into an interest-bearing account in

accordance with Rule 67 of the Fed. R. Civ. P. pending rulings by this court on certain post-trial

motions and the Court being of the opinion that said motion is well taken, the court hereby

GRANTS said motion and orders that the sum of $400,000.00 be invested into the court

approved interest-bearing account at the time said funds are delivered to the clerk of court. 

DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of February, 2010. 

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:08-cv-00240-CG-C Document 168 Filed 02/05/10 Page 1 of 1
Precision Engineering of Biomolecular Function with Massively Multiplexed 

Genotype-Phenotype Measurements and Machine Learning

David Ross1, Drew S. Tack1, Peter D. Tonner1, Abe Pressman1, Nathan D. Olson1, Sasha F. Levy2, Eugenia F. Romantseva1, Nina Alperovich1, Olga Vasilyeva1

1National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 2SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory

Goals

● Help turn engineering biology into a mature, 

quantitative engineering discipline

● Create an engineering workflow for precision, madeto-specification biomolecules for use in larger 

engineering projects

● Replace and/or supplement directed evolution with 

something better

● Create a synthetic biology design-build-test-learn 

framework that can scale to millions of designs 

simultaneously

What do we want to engineer?

● Living Measurement Systems: cells engineered to 

sense their environment, make decisions, and respond

Results: Two Routes to Precision Engineering

Approach

protein-coding sequence DNA

barcode

106-107

variants

2. Transform sensor libraries 

into bacteria and link 

cell growth rate to sensor 

output

4. Short-read (barcode) 

sequencing to measure doseresponse (phenotype); longread sequencing to measure 

matching genotype

1. Create barcoded libraries of 

mutated variants of sensor proteins

3. Test every variant 

over a range of 

ligand 

concentrations

Quantitatively measure 

phenotype (doseresponse) and matching 

genotype for every 

variant in large library

1. In silico selection: Identify DNA sequences from 

measured library with desired dose-response

We have postdoctoral positions available and are also seeking collaborators interested in applying this 

measurement approach to other protein engineering projects; contact: david.ross@nist.gov

Results published in Molecular 

Systems Biology, DOI: 

10.15252/msb.202010179

2.1-fold RMSE 1.6-fold RMSE

2. Forward Engineering: Learn design rules 

from large-scale data (ML, biophysical 

models); predict new DNA sequences

Precision EC50: 1.25-fold 

accuracy over 3 orders 

of magnitude

Multi-objective 

engineering: Select EC50

and G∞independently

Genetically diverse 

inverted phenotypes

Completely novel 

band-stop phenotypes

Find rare dose-response phenotypes

High-accuracy, interpretable ML model 

of genotype-phenotype landscape

[Poster #112]

Extrapolative Engineering: 

Improved Inverted Sensors
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000839702
<NAME> READY CAPITAL CORP.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,951
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     119,329
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>