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

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING

56 Forsyth Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

David J. Smith

Clerk of Court 

March 27, 2024

For rules and forms visit

www.ca11.uscourts.gov

Clerk - Southern District of Florida 

U.S. District Court 

400 N MIAMI AVE

MIAMI, FL 33128-1810 

Appeal Number: 23-13612-GG 

Case Style: South Broward Hospital District v. Elap Services, LLC, et al

District Court Docket No: 0:20-cv-61007-AHS

The enclosed copy of the Clerk's Order of Dismissal pursuant to the joint stipulation of the 

parties to dismiss is issued as the mandate of this court. 

Clerk's Office Phone Numbers 

General Information: 404-335-6100 Attorney Admissions: 404-335-6122 

Case Administration: 404-335-6135 Capital Cases: 404-335-6200 

CM/ECF Help Desk: 404-335-6125 Cases Set for Oral Argument: 404-335-6141 

Enclosure(s) 

DIS-3 Letter and Entry of Dismissal Vol

 

USCA11 Case: 23-13612 Document: 40 Date Filed: 03/27/2024 Page: 1 of 2 

AP Mar 27, 2024 MIAMI

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/28/2024 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

______________

No. 23-13612-GG

______________ 

SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ELAP SERVICES, LLC, 

a Pennsylvania limited liability company,

GROUP & PENSION ADMINISTRATORS, INC.,

a Texas corporation, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

__________________________________________

ORDER: The motion to voluntarily dismiss appeal is GRANTED by clerk. Pursuant to FRAP 

42 and 11th Cir. R. 42-1(a), the above referenced appeal was duly entered dismissed on this 

date. 

Effective March 27, 2024. 

DAVID J. SMITH

Clerk of Court of the United States Court

of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

FOR THE COURT - BY DIRECTION 

USCA11 Case: 23-13612 Document: 40 Date Filed: 03/27/2024 Page: 2 of 2

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/28/2024 Page 2 of 2
§ 423.70 Violations. ( a ) When at, in, or on Reclamation facilities, lands, or waterbodies, you must obey and comply with: ( 1 ) Any closure orders established under subpart B of this part 423;
( 2 ) The regulations in subpart C of this part 423;
( 3 ) The conditions established by any permit issued under subpart D of this part 423; and
( 4 ) The regulations established by an authorized official in special use areas under subpart E of this part 423.
( b ) Violating any use or activity prohibition, restriction, condition, schedule of visiting hours, or public use limit established by or under this part 423 is prohibited.
( c ) Any continuous or ongoing violation of these regulations constitutes a separate violation for each calendar day in which it occurs.
#### Edward E. Rhatigan, as Commissioner of Welfare of the City of New York, Respondent, v. James A. Curry, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ. [191 Misc. 3.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

SISVEL INTERNATIONAL S.A., 

3G LICENSING S.A., AND SISVEL S.P.A. 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

HMD AMERICA, INC. AND HMD GLOBAL 

OY, 

Defendant.

Case No. 20-22051-CIV-GAYLES

PROPOSED ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION REQUESTING 

CLARIFICATION ON PAGE LIMITS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEFING 

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on Plaintiffs Sisvel International S.A., 

3G Licensing S.A., and Sisvel S.p.A. (“Sisvel”), Plaintiffs’ Motion Requesting Clarification On 

Page Limits For Claim Construction Briefing and it is: 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said Motion be and the same is hereby GRANTED. 

The Court hereby clarifies that the parties will not have a page limit to their reply brief. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade, Florida this ____ day of 

____________________, 2021. 

HONORABLE JUDGE DARRIN P. GAYLES 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Copies furnished to: 

All counsel of record 

Case 1:20-cv-22051-DPG Document 54-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2021 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of EvergreenBancorp, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gerald
O. Hatler, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations
          of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


/s/ Gerald O. Hatler
-------------------------------------
Gerald O. Hatler
President and Chief Executive Officer

March 17, 2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6171

RICKY WAYNE CRAVEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; H. W.

FISHER, Superintendent, Davie Correctional

Center,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Paul Trevor Sharp,

Magistrate Judge. (CA-97-637-6)

Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: June 2, 1998

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky Wayne Craven, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The parties consented to jurisdiction of the magistrate

judge to enter a final order in the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c)(i)(1994).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's judgment denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994

& Supp. 1998).* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate

judge's memorandum opinion and order and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Craven v. Attorney

General, No. CA-97-637-6 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 6, 1998). To the extent

that Appellant raises issues for the first time on appeal, we decline to address those issues. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d

246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). 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.

DISMISSED
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: June 25, 2014

TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Carl Daly, EPA Region 8

SUBJECT: June 19, 2014, Meeting with Metro Denver Economic Development Council 

Regarding Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

A one hour meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on June 19, 

2014 to discuss factual information related to the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing 

Power Plants (111(d)). The Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 

2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

Carl Daly, EPA Region 8

Scott Prestridge, Metro Denver Economic Development Council

Jack Isley, Xcel Energy

Jennifer Jones, Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce

Dave Lock, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association

Tom Dougherty, Lewis Roca Rothgerber, LLP

David Hiller, Colorado Energy Research Collaboratory

Glenn Johnston, GEVO

Eric Doan, Crow Horwath, PC
#### Frederick Weiss *et al. v.*The People of the State of Illinois.

*At Ottawa, September Term, 1882.*

*Appeal—in oases of misdemeanor—and what is a misdemeanor.*A 'person was indicted for keeping a common gaminghouse, tried, found guilty, and a fine of $100 imposed: *Held,*it was evident, from the character of the charge, together with the penalty imposed, the offence was a mere misdemeanor, and under the act of 1879, amendatory of the Practice act, an appeal will not lie directly from the trial court to this court, but must be taken to the Appellate Court.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake county.

This was an indictment for keeping a common gaming house. A trial in the court below resulted in a, conviction of the defendants, and the penalty imposed was a fine of

Mr. James McCartney, Attorney General,

moved the court to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the offence charged, and of which the defendants were • convicted, was a mere misdemeanor, and therefore the appeal should have been taken to the Appellate Court, under the act of 1879, amendatory of the Practice act, (Sess. Laws, 1879, 222,) which provides: “Appeals from and writs of error to circuit courts, * * * in all criminal cases below the grade of felony, shall be taken directly to the Appellate Court. ” Counsel also cited section 127 of the Criminal Code, which fixes the penalty for this offence: For the first offence, not less than *$100;*for the second offence, a fine of not less than $500, and imprisonment in the county jail not less than six *months;*for the third offence, a fine of not less than $500, and imprisonment in the penitentiary not less than two nor more than five years. There is no allegation that this was the second *91or third offence, and the amount of the fine imposed would indicate that it was the first offence.

Scholfield, J.:

The indictment and conviction in this case were for a mere misdemeanor. That is evident from the character of the charge, taken together with the penalty-imposed—a fine of $100. Under the act of 1879, amendatory of the Practice act, (Sess. Laws, 1879, 222,) appeals from and writs of error to the circuit courts, in all criminal cases below the grade of felony, are. required to be taken directly to the Appellate Court. The offence of which the appellant in this case'was convicted being below the grade of felony, we can not entertain his appeal. The case should have been taken to the Appellate Court.

*Appeal*dismissed.
#### § 3712.2-5 Proof of publication.

After the period of newspaper publication has expired, the department or agency requesting the publication shall obtain from the office of the newspaper or publication a sworn statement that the notice was published at the time and in accordance with the requirements under the regulations of this part, and shall file such sworn statement in the office where the Request for Publication was filed.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 194 (Thursday, October 7, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 60184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22567]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Advisory 
Commission; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Chesapeake 
and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Advisory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Chesapeake and 
Ohio Canal National Historical Park Advisory Commission (the 
Commission) will be held on Friday, October 15, 2004, at Rockwood 
Manor, 11001 MacArthur Blvd., Potomac, Maryland. The meeting will begin 
at 9 a.m.
    Items on the agenda include the Georgetown University boathouse, 
planning initiatives, construction and development projects and park 
operational issues.
    The meeting will be open to the public. Any person may file with 
the Commission a written statement concerning the matters to be 
discussed. Persons who wish to file a written statement or testify at 
the meeting or who want further information concerning the meeting may 
contact Superintendent Kevin Brandt at (301) 714-2201.

DATES: October 15, 2004, at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: 11001 MacArthur Blvd., Potomac, Maryland 20854.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Superintendent Kevin Brandt, (301) 
714-2201.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission was established by Public Law 
91-664 to meet and consult with the Secretary of the Interior on 
general policies and specific matters related to the administration and 
development of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park.
    Members of the Commission are: Mrs. Sheila Rabb Weidenfeld, 
Chairman, Mr. Charles J. Weir, Mr. Barry A. Passett, Mr. Terry W. 
Hepburn, Ms. Elise B. Heinz, Ms. JoAnn M. Spevacek, Mrs. Mary E. 
Woodward, Mrs. Donna Printz, Mrs. Ferial S. Bishop, Ms. Nancy C. Long, 
Mrs. Jo Reynolds, Dr. James H. Gilford, Brother James Kirkpatrick.

    Dated: September 14, 2004.
Kevin Brandt,
Superintendent, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park.
[FR Doc. 04-22567 Filed 10-6-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-JK-M
#### § 3802.4-3 Multiple-use conflicts.

In the event that uses under any lease, license, permit, or other authorization pursuant to the provisions of any other law, shall conflict, interfere with, or endanger operations in approved plans or otherwise authorized by these regulations, the conflicts shall be reconciled, as much as practicable, by the authorized officer.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 20-CV-14181-MARRA

GANG CHEN, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

CHINA GREEN AGRICULTURE, INC., 

ZHUOYU LI and YONGCHENG YANG,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE UNITED STATES 

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

The pro se Plaintiff, Gang Chen, brought this action against China Green Agriculture, Inc. 

(“China Green”), a company based in the People’s Republic of China, and two of its officers, 

Zhuoyu Li (“Li”) and Yongcheng Yang (“Yang”), individuals residing in China, alleging multiple 

counts of securities fraud. Defendants moved to dismiss based on improper venue, lack of personal 

jurisdiction and insufficiency of service of process [DE 17]. On September 28, 2020, the Court 

ruled that venue did not lie in the Southern District of Florida under 15 U.S.C. § 78aa, and ordered 

the parties to show cause why the case should not be transferred to the Southern District of New 

York or other proper forum under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) [DE 31]. 

The parties have since filed their respective positions on the proposed transfer. In his 

response submitted on October 15, 2020, Plaintiff essentially asks the Court to reconsider its ruling 

on venue in this District [DE 32]. The Court, however, finds no additional allegations or evidence 

proffered to support an alteration of its original analysis of the venue issue. Defendants do not 

Case 2:20-cv-14181-KAM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 1 of 2
oppose transfer to the Southern District of New York [DE 33].

It is accordingly ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. This case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). 

2. Defendants’ request for dismissal based on insufficient service of process is DENIED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE to its renewal before the transferee court.

3. Defendant’s motion for imposition of vexatious litigation attorneys’ fees under 28 

U.S.C. §1927 [DE 27] is DENIED.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case file in this District and terminate 

any other pending motions in this file as MOOT.

DONE and SIGNED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this 2

nd day of November,

2020.

KENNETH A. MARRA

United States District Judge

cc. All counsel 

 Gang Chen, pro se

Case 2:20-cv-14181-KAM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 2 of 2
#### Corneliussen *&*Stakgold, Inc., Appellant, v. General Electric Company, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with cbsts. No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore and Shientag, JJ.
#### § 4300.1 What is a reindeer?

Reindeer, *Rangifer tarandus,* are a semi-domesticated member of the deer family, Cervidae. They are essentially the same animal as their wild cousins, the caribou, but tend to be smaller than caribou. Reindeer and caribou are different subspecies of the same family, genus, and species. The term “reindeer” includes caribou that have been introduced into animal husbandry or have joined reindeer herds, the offspring of these caribou, and the offspring of reindeer.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4856 

To require the denial of admission to the United States for individuals 

subject to sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13876, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2022 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. COTTON, Mr. HAGERTY, Ms. ERNST, Mr. BARRASSO, and Mr. RUBIO) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require the denial of admission to the United States 

for individuals subject to sanctions pursuant to Executive 

Order 13876, 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 ‘‘Strengthening Entry 

5 Visa Enforcement and Restrictions Act of 2022’’ or the 

6 ‘‘SEVER Act of 2022’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4856 IS

1 SEC. 2. DENIAL OF VISAS TO CERTAIN REPRESENTATIVES 

2 TO UNITED NATIONS. 

3 Section 407(a)(1) of the Foreign Relations Author4 ization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 

5 101–246; 8 U.S.C. 1102 note) is amended by striking ‘‘; 

6 and’’ and inserting ‘‘, or is subject to sanctions pursuant 

7 to Executive Order 13876 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note; relating 

8 to imposing sanctions with respect to Iran), as in effect 

9 on September 15, 2022; and’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
CHIEF JUSTICE

 CAROLYN WRIGHT

JUSTICES

 DAVID L. BRIDGES

 MOLLY FRANCIS

 DOUGLAS S. LANG

 ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

 ROBERT M. FILLMORE

 LANA MYERS

 DAVID EVANS

 DAVID LEWIS

 ADA BROWN

 CRAIG STODDART

 BILL WHITEHILL

 DAVID J. SCHENCK

Court of

S

Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

600 COMMERCE STREET, SUITE 200

DALLAS, TEXAS 75202

(214) 712-3400

LISA MATZ

CLERK OF THE COURT

(214) 712-3450

lisa.matz@5th.txcourts.gov

GAYLE HUMPA

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR

(214) 712-3434

gayle.humpa@5th.txcourts.gov

FACSIMILE

(214) 745-1083

INTERNET

HTTP://5TH.TXCOURTS.GOV

August 31, 2015

Katherine Drew

Dallas County Public Defender’s Office

133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB-2

Dallas, TX 75207

Lori Ordiway

Dallas County District Attorney’s Office

133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB-19

Dallas, TX 75207

RE: 05-15-01022-CR

Lauro Arizpe v. The State of Texas

Counsel:

The Court has reviewed appellant’s jurisdictional letter brief and the document attached. It 

appears we have jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.2(b)(1), 26.2(a)(1).

The clerk’s and reporter’s records are due by Monday, September 8, 2015. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 35.2(a).

Sincerely,

/s/ Lisa Matz, Clerk of the Court

cc: Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk

Crystal Jones, Official Court Reporter, Criminal District Court

ltr:mrh
§ 3931.41 Content of exploration plan. Exploration plans must contain the following: ( a ) The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant, and, if applicable, that of the operator or lessee of record;
( b ) The name, address, and telephone number of the representative of the applicant who will be present during, and responsible for, conducting exploration;
( c ) A description of the proposed exploration area, cross-referenced to the map required under paragraph (h) of this section, including: ( 1 ) Applicable Federal lease and exploration license serial numbers;
( 2 ) Surface topography;
( 3 ) Geologic, surface water, and other physical features;
( 4 ) Vegetative cover;
( 5 ) Endangered or threatened species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.*) that may be affected by exploration operations;
( 6 ) Districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places that may be present in the lease area; and
( 7 ) Known cultural or archaeological resources located within the proposed exploration area;
( d ) A description of the methods to be used to conduct oil shale exploration, reclamation, and abandonment of operations including, but not limited to: ( 1 ) The types, sizes, numbers, capacity, and uses of equipment for drilling and blasting, and road or other access route construction;
( 2 ) Excavated earth-disposal or debris-disposal activities;
( 3 ) The proposed method for plugging drill holes; and
( 4 ) The estimated size and depth of drill holes, trenches, and test pits;
( e ) An estimated timetable for conducting and completing each phase of the exploration, drilling, and reclamation;
( f ) The estimated amounts of oil shale or oil shale products to be removed during exploration, a description of the method to be used to determine those amounts, and the proposed use of the oil shale or oil shale products removed;
( g ) A description of the measures to be used during exploration for Federal oil shale to comply with the performance standards for exploration (§§ 3930.10 and 3930.11);
( h ) A map at a scale of 1:24,000 or larger showing the areas of land to be affected by the proposed exploration and reclamation. The map must show: ( 1 ) Existing roads, occupied dwellings, and pipelines;
( 2 ) The proposed location of trenches, roads, and other access routes and structures to be constructed;
( 3 ) Applicable Federal lease and exploration license boundaries;
( 4 ) The location of land excavations to be conducted;
( 5 ) Oil shale exploratory holes to be drilled or altered;
( 6 ) Earth-disposal or debris-disposal areas;
( 7 ) Existing bodies of surface water; and
( 8 ) Topographic and drainage features; and
( i ) The name and address of the owner of record of the surface land, if other than the United States. If the surface is owned by a person other than the applicant or if the Federal oil shale is leased to a person other than the applicant, include evidence of authority to enter that land for the purpose of conducting exploration and reclamation.