alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Southern District of Florida

KEY WEST POLICE & FIRE PENSION FUND, on

behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,

RYDER SYSTEM, INC., ROBERT E. SANCHEZ,

ART A. GARCIA, and SCOTT T. PARKER,

Ryder System, Inc.

c/o Robert D. Fatovic, Registered Agent

11690 NW 105th St

Miami, FL 33178-1103

Avi Josefson

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP

1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor

New York, New York 10020

Case 1:20-cv-22109-JB Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

" I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

" I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

" I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

" I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

" Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

0.00

Case 1:20-cv-22109-JB Document 1-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 2 of 2
* 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. 03-10471

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GUILLERMO RAMIREZ-LABRA, also known

as Juan Cruz-Herrera,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:02-CR-00043-ALL-C

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

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

PER CURIAM:*

 Guillermo Ramirez-Labra appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Ramirez-Labra contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have
No. 03-10471

-2-

been alleged in his indictment. Ramirez-Labra maintains that he

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the term of imprisonment and supervised release which may be

imposed for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Ramirez-Labra acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-61067-RAR

CARLOS ANTWON ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER EDUARDO J. REQUEJO, et. al,

Defendants. 

______________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) 

[ECF No. 39] of Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss. The Report recommends that the Court deny 

Defendants’ Motion for Final Summary Judgment (“Motion”) [ECF No. 23]. See Report at 1, 14. 

The time for objections has passed, and there are no objections to the Report.

When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must 

review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely objected, 

however, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in 

order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983 

addition (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme 

Court has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de novo review where objections 

have been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 

(1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate[] 

[judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party 

objects to those findings.” (emphasis in original; alterations added)). The Supreme Court further 
Page 2 of 2

stated nothing in the legislative history “demonstrates an intent to require the district court to give 

any more consideration to the magistrate’s report than the court considers appropriate.” Id. at 150. 

To date, no objections have been received. Thus, the Court considers it appropriate to 

review the Report for clear error. Having carefully reviewed the Motion, the Report, the factual 

record, the applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report [ECF No. 39] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 

2. Defendants’ Motion [ECF No. 23] is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 12th day of July, 2021.

________________________________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss

counsel of record
§ 2710.0-3 Authority. ( a ) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701, 1713), to sell public lands where, as a result of land use planning, it is determined that the sale of such tract meets any or all of the following disposal criteria: ( 1 ) Such tract was acquired for a specific purpose and the tract is no longer required for that or any other Federal purpose; or
( 2 ) Disposal of such tract shall serve important public objectives, including but not limited to, expansion of communities and economic development, which cannot be achieved prudently or feasibly on lands other than public lands and which outweigh other public objectives and values, including, but not limited to, recreation and scenic values, which would be served by maintaining such tract in Federal ownership; or
( 3 ) Such tract, because of its location or other characteristics is difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands and is not suitable for management by another Federal department or agency.
( b ) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized by section 310 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1740) to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the purpose of the Act.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE****SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Glen E. Shipley, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Internet Commerce Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our report about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial report which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:December 13, 2005    By: /s/ Glen E. Shipley  Glen E. Shipley  Chief Financial Officer
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO: 0:20-CV-21993-MGC

MARVELI RAYO, 

 Plaintiff, 

Vs. 

I.C. SYSTEM, INC., & 

MD NOW MEDICAL CENTERS, INC.

Defendants. 

__________________________________________/ 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF 

MD NOW MEDICAL CENTERS, INC.

The undersigned attorney files this Notice of Appearance on behalf of Defendant MD 

NOW MEDICAL CENTERS, INC. As such, all communications, pleadings, and filings

regarding this present action should be directed to the undersigned attorney. 

CONSENT

 The undersigned hereby acknowledges that we have read this form and consent to the 

appearance of and representation by Randy M. Goldberg, Esquire of the Florida Heath Care Law

Firm, as our attorney in the above captioned matter.

By: ___________________________________ 

Keith Gordon, as Chief Executive Officer of

MD NOW MEDICAL CENTERS, INC.

CERTIFICATIONS BY ATTORNEY

I hereby certify that this appearance is in conformity with the requirements of Local 

General Rule 11.1 and the Special Rules Governing the Admission and Practice of Attorneys. 

Case 1:20-cv-21993-MGC Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

I hereby certify that a copy of this pleading which was filed with the Clerk of the Court 

was provided to the Plaintiff’s attorneys: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esquire, jibrael@jibraellaw.com, & 

Thomas J. Patti, Esquire, tom@jibraellaw.com, 110 SE 6th Street, #1744, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 

33301; Paul A. Herman, Esquire, paul@consumeradvocatelaw.com, 4801 Linton Blvd, #11A560, Delray Beach, FL 33445; Joel A. Brown, Esquire, Joel.brown@friedmanandbrown.com, 

3323 NW 55th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309; via the Court’s ECM/ECF Portal on May 26, 

2020.

/s/ RANDY M. GOLDBERG, ESQUIRE

Florida Healthcare Law Firm

151 NW 1st Avenue

Delray Beach, FL 33444

754-224-0867

FBN: 045187

randy@randygoldberglaw.com

randymgoldberg@gmail.com

Case 1:20-cv-21993-MGC Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Guaranty Trust Company of New York, as Mortgagee, Appellant, against Harry B. Chambers et al., Constituting the Tax Commission of the City of New York, et al., Respondents. [410 Riverside Drive, Borough of Manhattan.]

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Callahan, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.
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 HIGH

 429

 423

 426

 429

 451

 481

 458

 436

 442

 456

 451

 464

 466

 465

 458

 432

 433

 423

 428

 444

 445

 438

 433

 447

 438

 429

 448

 450

 460

 439

 414

 389

 390

 388

 389

 389

 393

 391

 393

 394

 397

 399

 401

 403

 404

 402

 401

 401

 401

 404

 404

 404

 403

 403

 401

 397

 393

 391

 390

 388

 387

 387

 399

 400

 399

 401

 407

 420

 416

 409

 406

 412

 413

 414

 415

 419

 416

 410

 410

 410

 412

 414

 417

 418

 415

 415

 410

 407

 406

 407

 407

 397

 395

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MARCH 2022 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: April 4, 2022

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

VICTORIA CANAL ON THE MIDDLE RIVER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-61053-CIV-ALTMAN/Hunt

CHERYL CENDAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD

COUNTY, FLORIDA,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

FINAL JUDGMENT

In a separate order, we granted the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 

96]. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, we hereby ORDER AND ADJUDGE as 

follows:

1. Judgment is entered in favor of the Defendant. The Plaintiff shall take nothing by this 

action.

2. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. All deadlines are TERMINATED, and any 

pending motions are DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida this 9th day of September 

2022.

 _________________________________

 ROY K. ALTMAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 0:20-cv-61053-RKA Document 150 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 1 of 1
Affirm and Opinion Filed October 1, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-12-01476-CR

JOSE FRANCISCO ORTEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F01-52273-M



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices FitzGerald, Francis, and Myers Opinion by Justice Francis

Jose Francisco Ortez appeals from the adjudication of his guilt for aggravated robbery

with a deadly weapon. The tria l court assessed punishment at imprisonment for seven years. On

appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and

without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

The brief presents a professional evaluation of the reco rd showing why, in effect, there are no

arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right

to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response.‐ 2 ‐ We have reviewed the reco rd and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824,

827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the

appeal is frivolous and without me rit. We find nothing in the reco rd that might arguably support

the appeal.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47 131295F.U05

/Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE‐ 3 ‐ 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

JUDGMENT

JOSE FRANCISCO ORTEZ, Appellant

No. 05-12-01476-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F01-52273-M). Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, Justices FitzGerald and Myers participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED

.

Judgment entered October 1, 2013

/Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE
§ 4.610 What information must my application for an award contain? ( a ) Your application for an award of fees and expenses under the Act must: ( 1 ) Identify you;
( 2 ) Identify the proceeding for which an award is sought;
( 3 ) Show that you have prevailed;
( 4 ) Specify the position of the Department or other agency that you allege was not substantially justified;
( 5 ) Unless you are an individual, state the number of your employees and those of all your affiliates, and describe the type and purpose of your organization or business;
( 6 ) State the amount of fees and expenses for which you seek an award;
( 7 ) Be signed by you or your authorized officer or attorney;
( 8 ) Contain or be accompanied by a written verification under oath or under penalty of perjury that the information in the application is true and correct; and
( 9 ) Unless one of the exceptions in paragraph (b) of this section applies, include a statement that: ( i ) Your net worth does not exceed $2 million, if you are an individual; or
( ii ) Your net worth and that of all your affiliates does not exceed $7 million in the aggregate, if you are not an individual.
( b ) You do not have to submit the statement of net worth required by paragraph (a)(9) of this section if you do any of the following: ( 1 ) Attach a copy of a ruling by the Internal Revenue Service that you qualify as a tax-exempt organization described in 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3);
( 2 ) Attach a statement describing the basis for your belief that you qualify under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3), if you are a tax-exempt organization that is not required to obtain a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service on your exempt status;
( 3 ) State that you are a cooperative association as defined in section 15(a) of the Agricultural Marketing Act (12 U.S.C. 1141j(a)); or
( 4 ) Seek fees and expenses under § 4.605(c) and provide information demonstrating that you qualify as a small entity under 5 U.S.C. 601.
( c ) You may also include in your application any other matters that you wish the adjudicative officer to consider in determining whether and in what amount an award should be made.
EXHIBIT 11.1

                       COMPUTATION OF NET (LOSS) PER SHARE
                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 Three Months Ended              Six Months Ended
                                                     January 31                      January 31
                                             ---------------------------     ---------------------------

                                                1996            1997            1996            1997
                                             -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
<S>                                          <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>         
NET (LOSS) ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMON
   SHAREHOLDERS .........................    $(771,019,)     $  (557,379)    $(1,435,566)    $(1,101,579)
                                             ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========
Weighted average number of Class A common
   share outstanding ....................      2,721,850       2,954,260       2,721,850       2,954,260

Weighted average number of Class B common
   share outstanding ....................      1,469,050       1,372,566       1,469,050       1,372,566

Less escrow shares ......................       (781,244)       (781,244)       (781,244)       (781,244)
                                             -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF COMMON SHARE
   AND COMMON SHARE EQUIVALENTS
   OUTSTANDING ..........................      3,409,656       3,545,582       3,409,656       3,545,582
                                             ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========
NET (LOSS) PER SHARE OF COMMON SHARE AND
   COMMON SHARE EQUIVALENTS .............    $      (.23)    $      (.16)    $      (.42)    $      (.31)
                                             ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========
</TABLE>

                  The accompanying notes are an integral part
                    of these condensed financial statements.