alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| 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      for said period. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                 |   |                         |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  March      29, 2010 |   | /s/ Martin P.      Rosendale |   |
|                                 |   | Martin      P. Rosendale     |   |
|                                 |   | Chief      Executive Officer |   |

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID E. COX, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 15-0032-WS-C

INLAND DREDGING COMPANY, :

LLC, etc., et al.,

:

Defendants.

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and there having been 

no objections filed, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(l)(B) and dated April 15, 2016 is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

DONE this 20th day of May, 2016.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00032-WS-C Document 43 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 1
AO 247 (Rev. 11/11) ALSD Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

United States of America

)

)

)

)

)

)

v.

Case No:

USM No:

Date of Original Judgment:

Date of Previous Amended Judgment:

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

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of u the defendant u the Director of the Bureau of Prisons u the court under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion, and taking into account the policy statement set forth at USSG §1B1.10

and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

u DENIED. u GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in 

the last judgment issued) of months is reduced to .

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

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Except as otherwise provided, all provisions of the judgment dated shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date:

Judge’s signature

Effective Date:

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

ANTWAND NORWOOD 06-00176-013

09558-003

4/8/2008

Pro Se

✔

✔

4/8/2008

11/30/2011 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade

United States District Judge

After a recalculation of the guidelines under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, the defendant is ineligible for a reduction.

Although his base offense level would be lower, at 34, two points are added for possession of the firearm for a total

offense level of 36, At that point in the calculation, the career offender provision would apply, raising the offense level

higher than the level based on the amount of crack cocaine, thus making the defendant ineligible for a reduction.

Case 2:06-cr-00176-CG-N Document 776 Filed 11/30/11 Page 1 of 1
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 13, 2023

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

________________

No. 3D23

- 0192

Lower Tribunal No. F04

- 31230

________________



### Leon Jackson

, 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, Mavel Ruiz , Judge.

Leon Jackson , in proper person.

Ashley Mo ody , Attorney General, and Kayla Heather McNab , Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, HENDON, and MILLER , JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 77006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30024]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 17, 2015.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice 
President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
    1. IBERIABANK Corporation, Lafayette, Louisiana; to merge with 
Georgia Commerce Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire 
Georgia Commerce Bank, both of Atlanta, Georgia.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 18, 
2014.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-30024 Filed 12-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Constantin Cheese, Appellant.

[970 NYS2d 703]

— Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Camacho, J), imposed March 23, 2011, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Eng, RJ., Skelos, Roman, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the annual filing of CyPost Corporation, a NevadaDelaware
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10KSB for the period ended December 31,
2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,
Javan Khazali, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350), that:

(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 result of operations of the Company.


/S/ JAVAN KHAZALI
Javan Khazali
Chief Financial Officer and CEO
April 15, 2003


<PAGE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File No's 333-73616 and 333-106136) and on Form S-8
(File No's. 333-39802, 333-57536 and 333-102887) of Handspring, Inc. of our
report dated July 21, 2003, except as to Notes 3(i) and 7, as to which the date
is September 25, 2003, relating to the financial statements and financial
statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K/A.






/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Jose, California
September 26, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1677

TIJON COX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Social Security Administration,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. 

(1:10-cv-00581-CCB)

Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: November 24, 2010

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

TiJon Cox, Appellant Pro Se. Alex Gordon, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

TiJon Cox appeals the district court’s order denying 

relief on his complaint alleging violations of his rights under 

the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 

(2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Cox v. Astrue, No. 1:10-cv-00581-CCB (D. Md. 

June 7, 2010). We further deny Cox’s motions for default 

judgment and for summary disposition. We deny Cox’s motions to 

expedite as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 10.5


 



BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING INC.


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO


SEVERANCE PAY POLICY

 TIER I







THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SEVERANCE PAY POLICY, TIER I (this "Amendment") is adopted as of August 3, 2015, by Brookdale Senior Living Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company").







WHEREAS, effective August 6, 2010, the Company adopted the Brookdale Senior Living Inc. Severance Pay Policy, Tier I, for the benefit of a select group of management and highly compensated employees of the Company who are eligible to participate as described therein, and effective April 23, 2015, the Company adopted Amendment No. 1 to the Brookdale Senior Living Inc. Severance Pay Policy, Tier I to increase the benefits payable thereunder in the case of certain terminations of certain employees' employment from the Company (as amended, the "Policy"); and







WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Policy to make certain changes thereto.







NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of the date first above written, the Company hereby amends the Policy as follows:







1.            Section 2 is amended and restated in its entirety to provide as follows:


"Section 2.                 Eligible Employees


 The Policy is applicable to each of those employees of the Company and its Subsidiaries, other than the Company's Chief Executive Officer, who (i) is an officer of the Company with a title of Division President or Executive Vice President or higher and is designated by the Board or the Compensation Committee of the Board as a Designated Officer ("Designated Officer") and (ii) is an officer of the Company with a title of Division President or Executive Vice President or higher and is not designated by the Board or the Compensation Committee of the Board as a Designated Officer (the "Other Eligible Employees").  For purposes of the Policy, all Designated Officers and Other Eligible Employees shall be referred to herein as "Eligible Employees."  Subject to Section 20 of the Policy, the Board or the Compensation Committee of the Board may from time to time designate or remove officers of the Company as Designated Officers by written resolution, which designation or removal shall be communicated to such officer(s).


2.            All references in the Policy to the term "Executive Committee Member" shall be replaced with the term "Designated Officer".












[Remainder of page is left blank intentionally]



1










 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date first written above.












	 	
BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING INC.


	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	
By:

	
/s/ T. Andrew Smith

	
	 	
Name:

	
T. Andrew Smith


	 	
Title:

	
Chief Executive Officer





 


 




  




Signature Page to Amendment No. 2 to Severance Pay Policy, Tier I
Exhibit 99.1





Summary of Aggregate Amounts or End of Year

Amounts for the period ending December 31, 2003



Bank One Home Equity Loan Trust Series 1999-1





Summary of Aggregate Amounts

For the 12 months ending on the December 22, 2003 distribution date:



|                                           |  |        |  |                  
|------------------------------------------ |  | ------ |  | -----------------
|Pool Information:                          |  |        |  |                  
|                                           |  |       
|Pool Balance                               |  |        |  | $135,015,327.61  
|Principal Collections Net of Draws         |  |        |  | $55,783,878.86   
|Realized Losses                            |  |        |  | $1,446,627.99    
|Interest Collections                       |  |        |  | $8,372,758.67    
|Servicer Fees                              |  |        |  | $817,570.22      
|                                           |  |       
|Delinquency Information:                   |  |        |  |                  
|                                           |  |       
|                                           |  | Number |  | Principal Balance
|                                           |  |       
|30-59 days                                 |  | 80     |  | $2,330,654.53    
|60-89 days                                 |  | 27     |  | $814,795.25      
|90+ days                                   |  | 74     |  | $2,666,275.82    
|REO Properties                             |  | 0      |  | $0.00            
|                                           |  |       
|Investor Certificate Information:          |  |        |  |                  
|                                           |  |       
|Investor Certificate Principal Balance     |  |        |  | $121,027,494.47  
|Investor Certificate Principal Distributed |  |        |  | $55,282,957.10   
|Investor Certificate Interest Distributed  |  |        |  | $2,267,413.13
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification**

In connection with the annual report of CYIOS Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Timothy Carnahan, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), that based on my knowledge: 

1. The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

- The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the end of the periods covered by the Annual Report. 

| Date: October 25, 2011 |     |                                                                                                              |
|------------------------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        | By: | /s/                                                                                                          |
|                        |     | Timothy Carnahan                                                                                             |
|                        |     | President, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer & Director |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-0668-CG-M

)

SIRIANNI INVESTMENTS, INC., 

d/b/a SMOOTHIE KING,

)

)

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This cause is before the court on the Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice 

filed by the United States (Doc. 7).

Upon due consideration, the motion is hereby GRANTED. It is hereby 

ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of April, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00668-CG-M Document 8 Filed 04/21/16 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerome Abraham, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 539]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered August 16, 2011, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (four counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (four counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

“Probable cause to believe that the Vehicle and Traffic Law has been violated provides an objectively reasonable basis for the police to stop a vehicle and . . . there is no exception for infractions that are subjectively characterized as ‘de minimis’ ” *(People v Pealer,*20 NY3d 447, 457 n 2 [2013]). Here, the record supports the hearing court’s determination to credit a police officer’s testimony that he observed a vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger, inter alia, make a turn without signaling, which justified the stop of the vehicle for a traffic infraction *757
      *(see*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 [a]; *People v Davis,*103 AD3d 810, 811 [2013]; *People v Glover,*84 AD3d 977, 978 [2011]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the officer’s testimony was not incredible and did not appear to have been patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections *(see People v Lewis,*107 AD3d 826, 826-827 [2013]). We reach the same conclusion with respect to the officer’s testimony regarding an unmarked pill bottle that he observed in plain view during the stop *(see id.).*

The defendant also takes issue with the hearing court’s finding that the driver consented to a search of the trunk. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, there was nothing incredible about the officer’s testimony on this point. Moreover, to the extent that the defendant’s consent argument is based on a theory that the driver’s consent was involuntary, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Boucher,*97 AD3d 597, 598 [2012]) and, in any event, is without merit *(see People v Edwards,*46 AD3d 698, 699 [2007]; *People v Dobson,*285 AD2d 737, 738 [2001]; *People v Artis,*201 AD2d 488, 489 [1994]).

Accordingly, because the stop of the vehicle was lawful, and because the physical evidence seized either was in plain view or was obtained after the driver consented to a search, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials. The defendant’s remaining contentions concerning the suppression of testimony regarding police officers’ observations and of statements and testimony of a female witness are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Dillon, J.E, Sgroi, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 211 

To provide for the abolition of certain United Nations groups, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. STEUBE (for himself, Ms. MALLIOTAKIS, Ms. SALAZAR, Mr. LAMBORN, 

Mr. BUCK, Mr. PERRY, Mr. LATURNER, Mr. KELLY of Mississippi, Mr. 

VALADAO, Mr. GROTHMAN, and Mr. MOOLENAAR) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for the abolition of certain United Nations 

groups, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘COI Elimination Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. ABOLITION AND RESTRICTION. 

6 (a) STATEMENT OF POLICY.—It is the policy of the 

7 United States to— 

8 (1) seek the abolition of the United Nations 

9 Independent International Commission of Inquiry on 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 211 IH

1 the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East 

2 Jerusalem, and Israel; and 

3 (2) combat systemic anti-Israel bias at the 

4 United Nations Human Rights Council and other 

5 international fora. 

6 (b) ABOLITION OF CERTAIN UNITED NATIONS

7 GROUPS.—Subsection (b) of section 721 of the Admiral 

8 James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Au9 thorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001, enacted by 

10 reference pursuant to section 1000(a)(7) of the Depart11 ments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 

12 Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 

13 106–113) (22 U.S.C. 287 note) is amended by striking 

14 ‘‘; and the Division on Public Information on the Question 

15 of Palestine’’ and inserting ‘‘; the Division on Public Infor16 mation on the Question of Palestine; and the United Na17 tions Independent International Commission of Inquiry on 

18 the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jeru19 salem, and Israel’’. 

20 (c) RESTRICTION ON FUNDING.—Subsection (a) of 

21 section 114 of the Department of State Authorization Act, 

22 Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (22 U.S.C. 287e note) is 

23 amended— 

24 (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘and’’ after 

25 the semicolon; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 211 IH

1 (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and 

2 inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

3 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

4 paragraph: 

5 ‘‘(8) 25 percent of the amount budgeted for the 

6 United Nations Independent International Commis7 sion of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Terri8 tory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS