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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:20-cv-22893-KMM

BRYAN JAMES WALTERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff Bryan James Walters’s 

Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (“Mot.”) (ECF No. 4). The matter

was referred to the Honorable Jacqueline Becerra, United States Magistrate Judge, who issued a 

Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion be DENIED. (“R&R”) (ECF 

No. 10). Plaintiff did not file objections and the time to do so has passed. The matter is now ripe 

for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. 

The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

As set forth in the R&R, Magistrate Judge Becerra finds that (1) the screening provisions 

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) apply because Plaintiff moved to proceed IFP and (2) Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint should be dismissed for failure to allege sufficient factual matter. R&R at 1–3. 

Specifically, Magistrate Judge Becerra concludes that “[a]lthough Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint 

cites to [42 U.S.C. § 1983], it fails to provide any factual or evidentiary support to substantiate his 

claim.” Id. at 4. This Court agrees.

Case 1:20-cv-22893-KMM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 1 of 2
2

Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Amended Complaint, the Motion, the 

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

hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the R&R (ECF No. 10) is ADOPTED. It is FURTHER 

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff Bryan James Walters’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) is DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim;

2. The Clerk of Court is instructed to CLOSE this case; and

3. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED AS MOOT.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this ___ day of February, 2021. 

K. MICHAEL MOORE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Bryan James Walters

 200 East Las Olas

 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

 PRO SE

19th

Case 1:20-cv-22893-KMM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 2 of 2
### §1431. Exercise of rulemaking powers

The provisions of sections 1302(b)(3), section 1 1381(l), and 1384(c) of this title are enacted—

(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such they shall be considered as part of the rules of such House, respectively, and such rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and

(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of each House.

(Pub. L. 104–1, title V, §501, Jan. 23, 1995, 109 Stat. 39; Pub. L. 115–397, title II, §201(c), Dec. 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 5317.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–397 inserted ", section 1381(l)," before"and 1384(c) of this title" in introductory provisions.

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

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–397 effective upon expiration of the 180-day period beginning on Dec. 21, 2018, with provisions for effect on pending proceedings, see section 401 of Pub. L. 115–397, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.

1 So in original. The word "section" probably should not appear.
##### 



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
   (i)
    
    The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
 Dated: November 10, 2005
    
    /s / Michael J. RossMichael J. RossPresident and Chief Executive Officer,Dearborn Bancorp, Inc.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.5
                                  Estancia LLC
                                18 Highland Creek
                             Henderson, Nevada 89052

                                December 31, 2002

Twin Lakes, Inc.
1700 W. Horizon Ridge Parkway
Henderson, Nevada 89012

To Whom It May Concern:

Reference is hereby made to those certain promissory notes dated August 23,
2000, September 7, 2000, February 21, 2001 and August 31, 2002 in the aggregate
amount of $13,500 made by Twin Lakes, Inc. and held by Estancia LLC, which are
due and payable on the date hereof.

Estancia hereby extends the date upon which said promissory note shall be due
and payable, to on or before 19 months from the effective date of Twin Lakes'
Form 10-SB Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission
unless a business combination is completed earlier and the target business
repays the notes.

Very truly yours,

Estancia LLC


By: /s/ Johnny R. Thomas
    -----------------------
        Johnny R. Thomas
        Manager
Case 0:20-cv-61537-RS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 1 of 7
Case 0:20-cv-61537-RS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 2 of 7
Case 0:20-cv-61537-RS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 3 of 7
Case 0:20-cv-61537-RS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 4 of 7
Case 0:20-cv-61537-RS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 5 of 7
Case 0:20-cv-61537-RS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 6 of 7
Case 0:20-cv-61537-RS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 7 of 7
Motion Denied and Order filed June 3, 2021. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-21-00282-CV

____________

IN RE BASIM MOUSILLI, Relator

On Appeal from the 309th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2020-49635

ORDER

On May 21, 2021, relator Basim Mousilli filed a petition for writ of

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. 

App. P. 52.

Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a). To be a “certified or sworn 

copy,” in accordance with Rule 52, the document must be certified by the trial 

court clerk or attached to either a properly prepared affidavit or an unsworn 

declaration per Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 132.001. 
By this order, the court gives relator notice that the petition will be 

dismissed unless an amended petition is filed within ten days of the date of this 

order that addresses the record issues discussed in In re Kholaif, Nos. 14-20-

00731-CV & 14-20-00732-CV, 2020 WL 7013339 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] Nov. 25, 2020, order) and Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3(k)(1)(A)

and 52.7(a). Id; see also Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

Relator also filed a motion for temporary relief pursuant to Rule 29.3. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 29.3. This is not an appeal from an interlocutory order. Id. 

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice to filing a proper motion.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Bourliot, Poissant and Wilson.
§ 146.94 Records concerning establishment of manufacturing period. ( a ) *Feedstock admitted into the refinery subzone.* The operator must maintain appropriate inventory records during the manufacturing period to substantiate the feedstock(s) eligible for attribution under § 146.93(b) and in accordance with the operator's selected attribution method.
( b ) *Final product consumed in or removed from subzone.* The operator must record the date and amount of each final product consumed in, or removed from the subzone.
( c ) *Consumption or removal.* The consumption or removal of a final product during a week may be considered to have occurred on the last day of that week for purposes of attribution and relative value calculation instead of the actual day on which the removal or consumption occurred, unless the refiner elects to attribute using the FIFO method (see section II of the appendix to this part).
( d ) *Gain or loss.* A gain or loss that occurs during a manufacturing period must be taken into account in determining the attribution of a final product to a feedstock and the relative value calculation of privileged foreign feedstocks. Any gain in a final product attributed to a non-privileged foreign status feedstock is dutiable if entered for consumption unless otherwise exempt from duty.
( e ) *Determining gain or loss; acceptable methods* — ( 1 ) *Converting volume to weight.* Volume measurements may be converted to weight measurements using American Petroleum Institute conversion factors to account for gain or loss.
( 2 ) *Calculating feedstock factor to account for volume gain or loss.* A feedstock factor may be calculated by dividing the value per barrel of production per product category by the quotient of the total value of production divided by all feedstock consumed. This factor would be applied to a finished product that has been attributed to a feedstock to account for volume gain.
( 3 ) *Calculating volume difference.* Volume difference may be determined by comparing the amount of feedstocks introduced for a given period with the amount of final products produced during the period, and then assigning the volume change to each final product proportionately.
#### William T. ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-7724.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 30, 2002.

Decided May 23, 2002.

*92William T. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

William Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 *&*Supp.2001). For the reasons set forth below, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

The district court, acting sua sponte, determined from the face of Robinson’s petition that his action was barred by the one-year limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West Supp.2001), and dismissed the action without giving Robinson notice or an opportunity to respond. Our recent decision in *Hill v. Braxton,*277 F.3d 701 (4th Cir.2002), issued after the district court’s opinion, now requires the district court to provide such a warning “unless it is indisputably clear from the materials presented to the district court that the petition is untimely and cannot be salvaged by equitable tolling principles or any of the circumstances enumerated in § 2244(d)(1).” *Id.*at 707.

Because it is not “indisputably clear” on the present record that Robinson cannot salvage his petition, we grant Robinson’s motions for a certificate of appealability, vacate the district court’s order, and remand to the district court to provide Robinson with the notice and opportunity to respond to which he is now entitled pursuant to *Hill.*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.

*VACATED AND REMANDED.*
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington TX 76011-8064

No. IV-01-014 April 3, 2001

CONTACT: Breck Henderson

Phone: 817-860-8128

Cellular: 817-917-1227

e-mail: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $5,500 FINE

FOR BAYOU INSPECTION SERVICES, INC.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a fine of $5,500 against Bayou

Inspection Services, Inc. for two violations of NRC safety regulations governing the conduct of

radiography work in off-shore waters. Bayou, based in Amelia, La., performs radiography for offshore pipe laying and other operations.

NRC inspectors found that the company failed to notify the NRC prior to conducting

radiography operations in off-shore waters, and failed to obtain an exemption from the NRC for the use

of “pipeliner” radiography devices. A pipeliner is used to inspect the welds joining sections of pipe

being laid on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico to transport oil and gas from offshore production

operations. Pipeliners contain a strong radioactive source that takes an X-ray-like picture of the welds

being inspected to insure there are no flaws. Companies may use the device only with an NRC

exemption that specifies certain safety precautions to reduce workers’ exposure to radiation.

Bayou officers met with the NRC in Arlington, Texas, on February 9 to discuss circumstances

surrounding the violations and others that were found during the NRC’s inspection of Bayou’s

operations. Subsequently, the NRC determined that the two violations, failure to notify and failure to

obtain an exemption, constituted a single level III violation. The NRC uses a four-level scale on which

a level I violation is the most severe. Level III violations carry a $5,500 base civil penalty, subject to

adjustment based on various factors. Two other violations involving failure to perform exposure

evaluations required by NRC regulations were judged to be level IV, which have no fine associated.

No injuries to workers or the public resulted from the violations.

Since the inspection, Bayou has filed the required notification forms and requested an

exemption to use pipeliners. However, NRC Regional Administrator Ellis W. Merschoff said in a

letter to Bayou president Willie Tezeno, that the fine is imposed, “To emphasize the importance of

strict compliance with NRC requirements associated with radiography operations, and the significance

that the NRC attaches to violations committed willfully . . .” The company has 30 days to pay the fine

or protest it. If the protest is denied, the company may request a hearing by the NRC.
Copies of the Notice of Violation sent to Bayou Inspection Services, Inc. and the NRC’s

inspection report can be found on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/OE/rpr/ea00297.htm.

###
### §522. Extortionate picketing; penalty for violation

(a) It shall be unlawful to carry on picketing on or about the premises of any employer for the purpose of, or as part of any conspiracy or in furtherance of any plan or purpose for, the personal profit or enrichment of any individual (except a bona fide increase in wages or other employee benefits) by taking or obtaining any money or other thing of value from such employer against his will or with his consent.

(b) Any person who willfully violates this section shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(Pub. L. 86–257, title VI, §602, Sept. 14, 1959, 73 Stat. 539.)
EXHIBIT 32.2



               CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER
                    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 Diasense, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Keith R. Keeling, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted pursuant to  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:  February 14, 2006



/s/ Keith R. Keeling

Keith R. Keeling
Principal Accounting Officer
#### William McGurkian, Respondent, *v.*Thomas J. Buckley Construction Company, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the Hew York county clerk’s, office on the 8th day of Hovember, 1912, upon a verdict, and also from an order entered on the 4th day of Hovember, 1912, denying a motion for a new trial.

Per Curiam:

It is entirely clear from the evidence in this case that the jury were not justified in finding that the defendant was negligent or that the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence. The judgment and order appealed from must, therefore, be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ. Judgment and order reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed. Order to be settled on notice.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 98-12 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson April 3, 1998

OFFICE: 817/860-8128

PAGER: (800) 443-7243 (065477)

E-MAIL: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC TO MEET WITH WNP-2 TO DISCUSS

MARCH 11 AUTOMATIC SHUTDOWN

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with officials of the

Washington Public Power Supply System, operators of WNP-2, a nuclear power plant

near Richland, Washington, to discuss the results of a special inspection conducted

after an automatic plant shutdown from full power on March 11.

The meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 8 at 3 p.m. in the WPPSS

Multipurpose Facility at 3000 George Washington Way in Richland. The public is

invited to observe the meeting; however participation will be limited to NRC and

WPPSS officials. NRC staff will be available afterward for questions.

During the automatic shutdown plant safety equipment functioned to shut the

reactor down to a safe condition with no damage to safety-related components.

However, preliminary results of the inspection indicate that plant operators did not fully

understand all of the actions that took place during the event and may not have

responded as expected in some cases. These problems were addressed and

corrected prior to restarting the plant by additional operator training.

Minor irregularities in equipment function and indications also were noted by the

inspection team and will be discussed at the meeting. These irregularities also were

addressed and corrected prior to restart.

-more-
The event was initiated when an air line ruptured causing one of four main steam

isolation valves to fail shut. This started a complex chain of events that included a main

generator shutdown, a reactor trip, or SCRAM, and the automatic initiation of certain

Engineered Safety Features and the emergency core cooling system that are designed

to automatically switch on when plant parameters such as containment pressure and

reactor water level vary from normal operating limits. This event is one that the plant is

designed to sustain and should be a fundamental part of operator training and

experience.

The purpose of the meeting is to apprise WNP-2 officials of the initial findings of

the inspection team. The appropriateness of enforcement will be decided by senior

NRC managers after further consideration of the inspection results following

Wednesday’s meeting.

###
Editorial Note on Part 142
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 142 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93019, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 142.12 Time for filing or submission for preliminary review. ( a ) *At option of importer* — ( 1 ) *Filing.* Except as provided in § 142.13, the importer may file the entry summary documentation at the time of entry in which case the entry summary, with estimated duties attached, shall serve as both the entry and the entry summary.
( 2 ) *Submission for preliminary review.* If the importer intends to file the entry summary documentation at the time of entry, he may submit the entry summary documentation for preliminary review before arrival of the merchandise, in accordance with § 141.63(a) of this chapter. After preliminary review is completed, the entry summary shall be returned to the importer for filing in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( b ) *When required.* If the importer is not required to file the entry summary documentation at the time of entry under the provisions of § 142.13, or if he does not elect to do so, the entry summary documentation shall be filed, with estimated duties attached, within 10 working days after the time of entry.
( c ) *Estimated duties.* Estimated duties, if any, shall be deposited in accordance with the provisions of subpart G of part 141 of this chapter.
### §439a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 439a was editorially reclassified as section 30114 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

No. 00-017 February 3, 2000

NOTE TO EDITORS: NRC BUDGET BRIEFING

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will conduct a briefing for reporters on its budget for

Fiscal Year 2001 (October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001) on Monday, February 7 at 3:30 p.m. in the

Press Room (Room 1F22) on the ground floor of the One White Flint Building at 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The building is across from the Metro Red Line’s White Flint station.

A limited number of copies of the agency’s budget request (NUREG-1100, Volume 16) will be

available at the briefing or may be obtained afterwards by calling the Office of Public Affairs at 301-

415-8200. The document will be available also on NRC’s web site at

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/planning.html or may be purchased from the Government Printing Office,

telephone 202-512-1800.

###
§ 165.6 Adverse inferences. ( a ) *In general.* If the party to the investigation that filed an allegation, the importer, or the foreign producer or exporter of the covered merchandise fails to cooperate and comply to the best of its ability with a request for information made by CBP, CBP may apply an inference adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available to make the determination as to evasion pursuant to § 165.27 and subpart D of this part.
( b ) *Adverse inferences described.* An adverse inference used under paragraph (a) may include reliance on information derived from an allegation, a prior determination in another CBP investigation, proceeding, or action that involves evasion of AD/CVD orders, or any other available information on the administrative record.
( c ) *Application.* An adverse inference described in this section may be used with respect to the importer of the covered merchandise, or the foreign producer or exporter of the covered merchandise without regard to whether another party involved in the same transaction or transactions under examination has provided the information sought by CBP, such as import or export documentation.
[81 FR 56482, Aug. 22, 2016, as amended at 89 FR 19259, Mar. 18, 2024]
### §6622. Interest compounded daily

#### (a) General rule

In computing the amount of any interest required to be paid under this title or sections 1961(c)(1) or 2411 of title 28, United States Code, by the Secretary or by the taxpayer, or any other amount determined by reference to such amount of interest, such interest and such amount shall be compounded daily.

#### (b) Exception for penalty for failure to file estimated tax

Subsection (a) shall not apply for purposes of computing the amount of any addition to tax under section 6654 or 6655.

(Added Pub. L. 97–248, title III, §344(a), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 635.)

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 97–248, title III, §344(c), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 636, provided that: "The amendments made by this section [enacting this section and amending section 6601 of this title] shall apply to interest accruing after December 31, 1982."