alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael WEISS, Hal Anderson, Billing, Cochran, Health, Lyles, Mauro & Anderson, P.A., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-10740

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 3, 2006.

John Williams, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Nancy Wood Gregoire, Bunnell, Woulfe, Kirschbaum, Keller, McIntyre & Gregoire, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for DefendantsAppellees.

Before DUBINA, BLACK and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

John Williams filed a *pro se*complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against attorneys Michael Weiss and Hal Anderson, and their law firm, Billing, Cochran, Heath, Lyles, Mauro *&*Anderson, P.A (collectively, Billing Cochran). In a prior appeal, we affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Williams’ complaint.1*See Williams v. Carney,*157 Fed.Appx. 103 (11th Cir.2005). Williams now appeals the district court’s grant of Billing Cochran’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions against him. He argues the district court failed to give *945sufficient reasoning as to why it imposed sanctions. We agree and, therefore, vacate and remand the district court’s order for further explanation.

A district court’s award of Rule 11 sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion. *Massengale v. Ray,*267 F.3d 1298, 1301 (11th Cir.2001). Rule 11 permits imposing sanctions on an attorney, law firm, or party as the court deems appropriate. Fed. R.Civ.P. 11(c). When the district court orders sanctions, it must describe the conduct it determined warranted sanctions and explain the basis for the sanctions imposed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(3); *Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co.,*307 F.3d 1277, 1295 (11th Cir.2002). “[A] district court abuses its discretion by imposing sanctions on a plaintiff and his attorney absent findings that the plaintiff and his attorney violated Rule 11.” *Baker v. Alderman,*158 F.3d 516, 526 (11th Cir.1998).

Here, the magistrate judge issued an order granting Rule 11 sanctions against Williams, but failed to explain its reasons for doing so. It subsequently issued a report and recommendation that calculated the amount to be paid and the reasons for that amount, but again failed to explain why it ordered sanctions in the first place. The district court adopted the magistrate’s report without further explanation. As a result, this Court has no record for review to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding Rule 11 sanctions. Accordingly, we vacate the order granting Rule 11 sanctions and remand for further explanation in accordance with this opinion.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

1

. Although Williams raises arguments as to our holding in his previous appeal, we will not address those arguments in the present appeal.
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

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 1,901.67

 1,901.53

 1,901.52

 1,901.86

 1,901.54

 1,901.67

 1,901.83

 1,901.38

 1,901.77

 1,901.74

 1,901.44

 1,901.42

 1,901.56

 1,901.41

 1,901.36

 1,901.29

 1,901.34

 1,901.51

 1,901.36

 1,901.53

 1,901.32

 1,901.33

 1,901.36

 1,901.43

 1,901.49

 1,901.50

 1,901.41

 1,901.25

 1,901.30

 1,901.13

 1,901.56

 14,412

 14,307

 14,300

 14,554

 14,315

 14,412

 14,532

 14,195

 14,487

 14,465

 14,240

 14,225

 14,330

 14,218

 14,180

 14,128

 14,165

 14,292

 14,180

 14,307

 14,150

 14,158

 14,180

 14,233

 14,278

 14,285

 14,218

 14,098

 14,135

 14,008

 14,330

STORAGE

+127

-105

-7

+254

-239

+97

+120

-337

+292

-22

-225

-15

+105

-112

-38

-52

+37

+127

-112

+127

-157

+8

+22

+53

+45

+7

-67

-120

+37

-127

+322

CHANGE

2,175

2,060

2,106

2,181

1,099

1,569

1,713

1,382

1,882

1,757

1,669

1,805

1,845

1,738

1,867

1,932

1,870

1,873

1,784

1,905

1,751

1,838

1,839

1,743

2,148

2,139

1,785

1,777

1,847

1,656

1,792

INFLOW

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 29

 51

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 68

 80

 75

 80

 80

 32

 44

 71

 80

 80

 50

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 77

 80

POWER

 310

 311

 315

 314

 312

 313

 413

 353

 298

 303

 304

 303

 302

 326

 302

 41

 142

 139

 166

 175

 171

 152

 150

 94

 154

 154

 152

 151

 148

 142

 144

SPILL

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 29

 51

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 68

 80

 347

 156

 80

 128

 116

 71

 80

 80

 50

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 77

 80

OUTLETS

 5

 5

 0

 0

 2

 2

 2

 2

 3

 3

 3

 3

 3

 2

 2

 2

 2

 2

 3

 2

 2

 2

 2

 2

 2

 2

 2

 1

 2

 2

 0

C.F.S.

 .24

 .24

 .02

 .00

 .09

 .07

 .10

 .10

 .12

 .12

 .12

 .12

 .14

 .08

 .10

 .10

 .08

 .09

 .15

 .11

 .11

 .11

 .10

 .10

 .08

 .08

 .11

 .06

 .08

 .11

 .00

INCHES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

OCTOBER 2008 LEWISTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: November 1, 2008

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

C.F.S. FRANCIS CARR

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +45 56,527 2,257 2,773 7,054 67 3.13

ACRE-FEET +45 112,121 4,477 5,500 13,992 133

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

(1) OUTLET RELEASE INCLUDES THE CONTINUOUS FISH RELEASE OF 75 C.F.S.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL POWER 4,477

TOTAL RIVER 23,969 111,939

 14,285

 87,970

RIVER

JUDGE FRANCIS CARR POWERPLANT

TOTAL RELEASE

JUDGE (2)

(1) POWERPLANT

 1,636

 1,637

 1,635

 1,579

 745

 1,045

 1,180

 1,095

 1,274

 1,302

 1,315

 1,347

 1,327

 1,330

 1,422

 1,493

 1,471

 1,508

 1,511

 1,504

 1,515

 1,520

 1,516

 1,520

 1,809

 1,819

 1,505

 1,525

 1,518

 1,422

 1,326

 44,351

 87,970
V 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5533 

For the relief of Yazmin Fabiola Juarez Coyoy. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2019 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Yazmin Fabiola Juarez Coyoy. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR YAZMIN 

4 FABIOLA JUAREZ COYOY. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Yazmin Fabiola Juarez Coyoy shall be eligible for 

8 issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 

9 to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi10 dence upon filing an application for issuance of an immi11 grant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment 

12 of status to lawful permanent resident. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5533 IH

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Yazmin Fabiola 

2 Juarez Coyoy enters the United States before the filing 

3 deadline specified in subsection (c), she shall be considered 

4 to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if other5 wise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under 

6 section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of 

7 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Yazmin Fabiola Juarez Coyoy, the Secretary of 

16 State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, dur17 ing the current or next following fiscal year, the total num18 ber of immigrant visas that are made available to natives 

19 of the country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) 

20 of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, 

21 the total number of immigrant visas that are made avail22 able to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under 

23 section 202(e) of such Act. 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5533 IH

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Yazmin Fabiola Juarez 

2 Coyoy shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded 

3 any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and 

4 Nationality Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### ROBERT J. DEBRY AND ASSOCIATES, P.C., a Utah corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. QWEST DEX, INC., a Colorado corporation; and Dex Media West, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-4049.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Aug. 4, 2006.

Lynn P. Heward, Robert J. Debry & Associates, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Joseph J. Joyce, Strong & Hanni, Salt Lake City, UT, Bobbee J. Musgrave, Paul J. Lopach, Musgrave *&*Theis, Denver, CO, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before HENRY, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

*686ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

BOBBY R. BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.

We certified to the Utah Supreme Court, as a dispositive question of law in this matter, the following pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 27.1 and Utah R.App. P. 41:

> Whether Defendants violated Utah Code Ann. § 13-lla-3(l)(b), (d), or (t) when they published in their 2003-2004 Ogden-area telephone directory a table of numerical prefixes associated with a “local calling area” and advertisements by third parties that include a market expansion line telephone number without any physical business address; and if so, whether Defendants are exempt from liability under Utah Code Ann. § 13-lla-5(l).

*See Robert J. DeBry and Assocs. P.C. v. Qwest Dex, Inc.,*No. 04-4049, Certification Order (10th Cir. March 21, 2005). The Utah Supreme Court graciously accepted our certification and held, under the facts as certified, that Defendant had not violated Utah Code Ann. § 13-lla-3(l)(b), (d), or (t). *See Robert J. DeBry and Assocs. P.C. v. Qwest Dex, Inc.,*144 P.3d 1079 (Utah 2006). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment dismissing Plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a cause of action is—

AFFIRMED.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3724 

AN ACT 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit 

the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service from 

rehiring any employee of the Internal Revenue Service 

who was involuntarily separated from service for misconduct. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3724 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ensuring Integrity in 

3 the IRS Workforce Act of 2016’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON REHIRING ANY EMPLOYEE OF 

5 THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE WHO WAS 

6 INVOLUNTARILY SEPARATED FROM SERVICE 

7 FOR MISCONDUCT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7804 of the Internal Rev9 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

10 following new subsection: 

11 ‘‘(d) PROHIBITION ON REHIRING EMPLOYEES INVOL12 UNTARILY SEPARATED.—The Commissioner may not em13 ploy any individual previously employed by the Commis14 sioner who was removed for misconduct under this sub15 chapter or chapter 43 or chapter 75 of title 5, United 

16 States Code, or whose employment was terminated under 

17 section 1203 of the Internal Revenue Service Restruc18 turing and Reform Act of 1998 (26 U.S.C. 7804 note).’’. 

19 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

20 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to any employee 

21 removed from employment before, on, or after the date 

22 of the enactment of this Act. 

23 SEC. 3. NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED. 

24 No additional funds are authorized to carry out the 

25 requirements of this Act and the amendments made by 
3 

•HR 3724 EH

1 this Act. Such requirements shall be carried out using 

2 amounts otherwise authorized. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 21, 2016. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3724 

AN ACT 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 

separated from service for misconduct. Internal Revenue Service who was involuntarily enue Service from rehiring any employee of the prohibit the Commissioner of the Internal Rev-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000732026
<NAME> TRIO-TECH INTERNATIONAL
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-25-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,437
<SECURITIES>                                     5,734
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,476
<ALLOWANCES>                                       257
<INVENTORY>                                      2,502
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,025
<PP&E>                                           6,212
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,344
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,014
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,698
<OTHER-SE>                                         251
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,344
<SALES>                                          6,787
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,787
<CGS>                                            5,051
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,051
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,078
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  42
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    616
<INCOME-TAX>                                       111
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                505
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       505
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18


</TABLE>
### §5331. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–382, title III, §391(l), Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 4023

Section, Pub. L. 101–589, title II, §241, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 2894, related to systemic reform of mathematics and science education.
Will not fly the drone within 3 miles of an airport or above 200 feet for the purposes of obtaining video

and photographs of crash scenes on a public highway to be used in civil court. Will follow the proper guidelines outlined by the manufacturer as well as any safety guidelines outlined by the FAA or any regulating government agency. The device is in compliance with Part 15 of FCC rules within the limit of a Class B digital device. PIC has a pilot’s license and is familiar with the operation and training with this particular device. Medical standards reflect those set by the FAA guidelines. The UAS will be used to photograph large vehicle crash scenes for use in an investigation. The UAS will not be flown at an altitude of more than 200 feet, and speed wi ll not exceed 20 miles per hour. Flights will last approximately twenty minutes. The UAS will always be flown within line of sight of the PIC. The UAS will not be flown more than 800 feet away from the PIC and the device has a built

- in failsafe to return t o base if flown outside these parameters. A pre

-flight checklist will be followed according to manufactures specifications.
### §80i. Authorization of appropriations; limitations

There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Board such funds as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this subchapter: Provided, That no more than $200,000 shall be authorized for appropriation through fiscal year 1970 and no part of that appropriation shall be available for construction purposes.

(Pub. L. 90–637, §7, formerly §6, Oct. 24, 1968, 82 Stat. 1359, renumbered Pub. L. 95–286, §1(1), May 26, 1978, 92 Stat. 278.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATIONEXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGES 1,2 AND 3 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,940
<SECURITIES>                                     1,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,812
<ALLOWANCES>                                       136
<INVENTORY>                                      8,316
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,169
<PP&E>                                           1,281
<DEPRECIATION>                                     322
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,947
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,976
<BONDS>                                          5,231
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,571
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,947
<SALES>                                          5,806
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,806
<CGS>                                            1,978
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,978
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,707
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 250
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (129)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (38)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (91)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   2,598
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,507
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .43
        


</TABLE>
### §7543. Purposes

The purposes of this part are as follows:

(1) To recognize and address the unique educational needs of Alaska Natives.

(2) To recognize the role of Alaska Native languages and cultures in the educational success and long-term well-being of Alaska Native students.

(3) To integrate Alaska Native cultures and languages into education, develop Alaska Native students' positive identity, and support local place-based and culture-based curriculum and programming.

(4) To authorize the development, management, and expansion of effective supplemental educational programs to benefit Alaska Natives.

(5) To provide direction and guidance to appropriate Federal, State and local agencies to focus resources, including resources made available under this part, on meeting the educational needs of Alaska Natives.

(6) To ensure the maximum participation by Alaska Native educators and leaders in the planning, development, implementation, management, and evaluation of programs designed to serve Alaska Native students.

(Pub. L. 89–10, title VI, §6303, formerly title VII, §7303, as added Pub. L. 107–110, title VII, §701, Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 1943; renumbered title VI, §6303, and amended Pub. L. 114–95, title VI, §§6001(a), (b)(1), 6004(b), Dec. 10, 2015, 129 Stat. 2046, 2068.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 7543, Pub. L. 89–10, title VII, §7303, as added Pub. L. 103–382, title I, §101, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3739, related to withholding, prior to the general amendment of former subchapter VII of this chapter by Pub. L. 107–110.

A prior section 6303 of Pub. L. 89–10 was classified to section 7353 of this title, prior to the general amendment of former subchapter VI of this chapter by Pub. L. 107–110.

#### Amendments

2015—Par. (1). Pub. L. 114–95, §6004(b)(1), inserted "and address" after "To recognize".

Pars. (2) to (5). Pub. L. 114–95, §6004(b)(2)–(5), added pars. (2) and (3), redesignated former pars. (2) and (4) as (4) and (5), respectively, substituted ", management, and expansion of effective supplemental educational programs to benefit Alaska Natives." for "of supplemental educational programs to benefit Alaska Natives." in par. (4), and struck out former par. (3) which read as follows: "To supplement existing programs and authorities in the area of education to further the purposes of this part."

Par. (6). Pub. L. 114–95, §6004(b)(6), added par. (6).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2015 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–95 effective Dec. 10, 2015, except with respect to certain noncompetitive programs and competitive programs, see section 5 of Pub. L. 114–95, set out as a note under section 6301 of this title.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of William W. McLaughlin and the Estate of Mary A. McLaughlin, Deceased. I. Gainsburg, Respondent; Helen E. McLaughlin, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Glennon and Callahan, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm.