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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CR-80052-RAR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

LAUREN ROSECAN,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PENDING EXPEDITED APPEAL

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Stay Pending 

Expedited Appeal [ECF No. 52], filed on March 30, 2021. Defendant seeks a stay of this case on 

the basis that he has filed an interlocutory appeal of the Court’s denial of his Motion to Dismiss 

[ECF No. 49], where the Court held that the information filed by the Government was sufficient 

to begin the prosecution within the statute of limitations period even though it was not 

accompanied by a waiver of indictment. Defendant maintains that “the principles applicable to 

review under the collateral order doctrine support interlocutory review in the circumstances of this 

case.” Reply ¶ 7. 

However, Defendant’s effort to recast his statute-of-limitations claim as a double jeopardy 

one is unavailing, and “[i]t is well settled law that an order denying a motion to dismiss an 

indictment on statute of limitations grounds is not immediately appealable under the collateral 

order doctrine.” United States v. Pi, 174 F.3d 745, 750 (6th Cir. 1999). The Court is therefore 

unpersuaded that a stay of this matter pending Defendant’s appeal is warranted. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion [ECF No. 52] is DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 16th day of April, 2021.

_________________________________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 9:20-cr-80052-RAR Document 64 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2021 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

National Defense University

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of a forthcoming meeting of the National Security Education Board. The purpose of the meeting is to review and make recommendations to the Secretary concerning requirements established by the David L. Boren National Security Education Act, Title VII of Public Law 102-183, as amended.

# DATES:

October 29, 2004.

# ADDRESSES:

The Crystal City Marriott Hotel, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Dr. Edmond J. Collier, Deputy Director for Programs, National Security Education Program, 1101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1210, Rosslyn PO Box 20010, Arlington, VA 22209-2248; (703) 696-1991. Electronic mail address:                         *colliere@ndu.edu*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Board meeting is open to the public.

Dated: October 12, 2004.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 04-23250  Filed 10-15-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 159 (Friday, October 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 60473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22731]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

September 28, 2004.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before November 8, 
2004 to be assured of consideration.

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB)

    OMB Number: 1513-0109.
    Form Number: TTB F 5013.1.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Electronic filing User Access Enrollment Form.
    Description: TTB F 5013.1 will be used in a pilot program for 
electronic filing of TTB forms. The pilot is being developed by TTB and 
Treasury's Financial Management Service. Participants will need to 
complete the form to be granted a password to access the e-filing 
system.
    Respondents: Business of other for-profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 25.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent: 18 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 7 hours.
    Clearance Officer: William H. Foster, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 
Trade Bureau, Room 200 East, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, 
(202) 927-8210.
    OMB Reviewer: Joseph F. Lackey, Jr., Office of Management and 
Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503, (202) 395-7316.

Lois K. Holland,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-22731 Filed 10-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-22313-COOKE/GOODMAN

SAMIR MOUSSA and

JAMILE MOUSSA,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S,

LONDON,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING 

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS MATTER is before the Court on U.S. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman’s Report 

and Recommendation (the “Report”) (ECF No. 30) regarding Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees 

contained within Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Remand (ECF No. 14). Pursuant to 28 USC 

636(c), the Court referred this case to Judge Goodman for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive 

matters and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters.

On March 7, 2022, Judge Goodman issued his Report in which he recommended that: 1) 

Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees stemming from the improper removal of this action be granted 

in part and denied in part; and 2) Plaintiffs be awarded $6,625.50 in attorney’s fees. Plaintiffs filed 

Objections to the Report on March 21, 2022. ECF No. 33. Thereafter, Defendants filed a response 

to Plaintiffs’ Objections on April 4, 2022. ECF No. 34.

A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and 

recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to 

which objections are made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific 

findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 

Case 1:20-cv-22313-MGC Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 1 of 2
2

2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which 

no specific objections are made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. 

WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. 

Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).

After conducting a de novo review of the record, Plaintiffs’Objections to Judge Goodman’s 

Report, Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ Objections, and the relevant legal authorities, the 

Undersigned agrees with Judge Goodman’s thorough and well-reasoned analysis and conclusion. 

Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Judge Goodman’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 30) is ADOPTED AND 

AFFIRMED;

2. Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED IN PART AND 

DENIED IN PART; and 

3. Plaintiffs are awarded $6,625.50 in attorney’s fees.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 13th day of October 2022.

___________________________________________

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

For Marcia G. Cooke, U.S. District Judge

Copies furnished to: 

Jonathan Goodman, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-22313-MGC Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 2 of 2
---

EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of Carlyle Gaming & Entertainment Ltd. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Domenic Filigno, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: (1)

   The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant. 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. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. Date: August 28, 2013

   By:

   /s/ Domenic FilignoDomenic FilignoChief Financial Officer & Director


---
#### Angelo Bisesto v. Exsilia Vizzo, Individually and as Executrix of Raffaela Bisesto, Deceased.

Piesent — Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
Order entered August 19, 2014

In The 

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

No. 05

- 13

- 01658

- CV
SULMA GONZALES, Appellant

V.

THE DALLAS COUNTY AP PRAISAL DISTRICT, ET AL., Appellee s
On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 09665



### O RDER
Before the Court is appellant’s August 7, 2014 “Motion to Appoint a Pro

- Bono Appeal Attorney and for a Humanitarian Assistance for the Sake of Justice, In the Alternative, Motion
for Extension of Tim e” and appellees’ response in opposition. This Court does not appoint counsel. Accordingly, we DENY appellant’s motion to the extent she requests appointment of
counsel and humanitarian assistance. With respect to appellant’s request for alternative reli ef, this is her second request for an
extension of time to file her brief. We GRANT appellant’s request for an extension of time. Appellant shall file her brief on or before SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 . We caution appellant that
failure to file her brief on or b efore SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 may result in dismissal of her appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1) & 42.3(b).
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
Affirmed and Opinion Filed May 5, 2014

In The 

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

No. 05-13-01230-CR No. 05-13-01231-CR

COY LEE LORANCE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 199-82496-2012, 199-80454-2013



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Moseley, O’Neill, and FitzGerald Opinion by Justice FitzGerald

Coy Lee Lorance pleaded guilty before a jury to five counts of sexua l assault of a child

and three counts of indecency with a ch ild, as alleged in two indictments. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE

A NN . §§ 21.11(a)(1), 22.011(a)(2) (W est 2011). Appellant also pleaded true to one enhancement

paragraph, as to each count. The jury found ap pellant guilty and the enhancement paragraphs

true. The jury assessed punishment on each se xual assault conviction at forty-two years’

imprisonment. The jury assessed punishment on each indecency with a child conviction at

thirty-one years’ impris onment. On appeal, appellant’s a ttorney filed a brief in which he

concludes the appeal is wholly fr ivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of‐ 2 ‐ Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presen ts a professional evaluation of the

record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State , 573

S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [P anel 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.

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 131230F.U05

/Kerry P. FitzGerald/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD JUSTICE‐ 3 ‐ 

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

JUDGMENT

COY LEE LORANCE, Appellant

No. 05-13-01230-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court of Collin County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 199-82496-2012). Opinion delivered by Justice FitzGerald, Justices Moseley and O’Neill participating.

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

.

Judgment entered May 5, 2014

/Kerry P. FitzGerald/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD JUSTICE‐ 4 ‐ 

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

JUDGMENT

COY LEE LORANCE, Appellant

No. 05-13-01231-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court of Collin County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 199-80454-2013). Opinion delivered by Justice FitzGerald, Justices Moseley and O’Neill participating.

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

.

Judgment entered May 5, 2014

/Kerry P. FitzGerald/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD JUSTICE
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Timothy Gray Johnson and * From the 118th District Court

Paquita Johnson, of Howard County,

 Trial Court No. 53412.

Vs. No. 11-20-00123-CV * March 31, 2022

Martha Lawler Dunham, * Memorandum Opinion by Trotter, J. 

 (Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

 Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by 

reason of this appeal are taxed against Timothy Gray Johnson and Paquita Johnson.
No: I-23-002 March 10, 2023 

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330 

 Neil Sheehan, 610-337-5331 

NRC to Meet with Connecticut Nuclear Energy Advisory Council

to Discuss Millstone Nuclear Power Plant 2022 Performance 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will discuss the 2022 safety performance of the 

Millstone nuclear power plant during a meeting with the Connecticut Nuclear Energy Advisory 

Council on Thursday, March 16. The two-unit plant, operated by Dominion Nuclear, is located in 

Waterford, Connecticut. 

The meeting will be held at the Waterford Town Hall, 15 Rope Ferry Road, beginning at 

6:30 p.m. NRC staff responsible for plant inspections, including the resident inspectors based fulltime at the site, will deliver a short presentation on NRC’s assessment of performance, followed by 

a question-and-answer session. 

Millstone Units 2 and 3 operated safely during 2022. At the end of the year, all inspection 

findings and performance indicators were green, or of very low safety significance. As a result, both 

units remain under the NRC’s normal level of oversight, which entails thousands of hours of 

inspection each year.

The NRC Reactor Oversight Process uses color-coded inspection findings and indicators to 

measure plant performance. The colors start at green and increase to white, yellow or red, 

commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. Inspection findings or 

performance indicators with more than very low safety significance trigger increased NRC 

oversight. 

Inspections are performed by three NRC resident inspectors and specialist inspectors from 

the Region I office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. 

The annual assessment letter for Millstone, as well as the meeting notice, are available on 

the NRC website. Current performance information for Unit 2 and Unit 3 is also available and is 

updated quarterly.
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 Willbros Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael F. Curran, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: June 16, 2006 |  | /s/ Michael F. Curran  
|                    |  | Michael F. Curran      
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer



47
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Miami Division 

Case Number: 20-22721-CIV-MORENO 

MARIO HERNANDEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CHARLOTTE BURROWS, Chair of the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Comission, 

Defendant. 

I ----------------------' 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE 

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Joint Emergency Motion for Continuance 

of Trial (D.E. 109), filed on February 23, 2022. The Court has considered the motion, the 

pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is 

ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED. 

The trial is specially set to begin August 15, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. Before the trial, the 

parties shall appear at a pretrial conference on August 9 at 9:30 a.m. The plaintiff shall file 

updated witness and exhibit list before noon on May 13. 1 Each exhibit on the list shall be 

specifically numbered and each shall be accompanied by a short description. The witness list 

shall indicate whether each witness will testify live or by deposition, and shall be accompanied 

by a short paragraph summarizing the witness's expected testimony. The defendant shall do the 

exact same by noon on May 20. However, the defendant needn't list any exhibit or witness that 

the plaintiff has already listed. In addition, by noon on May 27, the parties shall file any 

1 The Court has reviewed the exhibit lists that have already been submitted in this case and notes that many 

of the putatives exhibits-such as agency reports, investigations, and memoranda-contain hearsay, which is 

generally excludable. · 

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 115 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2022 Page 1 of 2
objections that they have to the opposing parties' witnesses or exhibits. The parties shall file any 

replies to those objections by noon on June 3. The Court will not grant any modifications or 

extensions of this schedule under any circumstance whatsoever. Neither will the Court grant any 

continance of the trial date of any kind, whether requested for personal, personnel, or other 

reasons. If counsel cannot try the case at the set time, they should make arrangements for other 

cqunsel to try the case. 17"' 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this / of March 2022. 

~~GE 

Copies furnished to: 

Counsel of Record 

2 

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 115 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2022 Page 2 of 2
#### Frank Poggioli, Appellant, v. Alice Bruggeman et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ.