alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(LOGO)ERNST&YOUNG LLP    Suite 1400              Phone: 512 478 9881
                         700 Lavaca              Fax:   512 473 3499
                         Austin, Texas 78701



                       REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

Board of Directors
Temple-Inland Financial Services, Inc. and
     Subsidiaries (including Knutson Mortgage
     Corporation)

We have examined  management's  assertion  included in the  accompanying  report
titled REPORT OF MANAGEMENT  that  Temple-Inland  Financial  Services,  Inc. and
Subsidiaries  (including Knutson Mortgage  Corporation) (the "Company") complied
with  the  minimum  servicing  standards  set  forth  in  the  Mortgage  Bankers
Association of America's UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS
during the 15 month period ended  December 31, 1997.  Management is  responsible
for the Company's  compliance with those requirements.  Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on  management's  assertions  about the Company's  compliance
based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's compliance with those
requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered  necessary in
the circumstances.  We believe that our examination  provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal  determination on the
Company's compliance with specified requirements.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that the  Company  complied  with the
aforementioned  requirements during the 15 month period ended December 31, 1997,
is fairly stated, in all material respects.

                                             /s/Ernst & Young LLP

January 30, 1998



       Ernst & Young LLp is a member of Ernst & Young International, Ltd.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 20-cv-61587-SINGHAL/Reid

ERVIN L. WATSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SARAH MANCINI et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Lisette

Reid’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (DE [10]), filed on October 5, 2020. Therein, 

Magistrate Judge Reid sua sponte considered Plaintiff’s Complaint (DE [1]) and 

recommends this case be DISMISSED.

Parties have fourteen days to file any objections to a magistrate judge’s factual 

findings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b). Here, neither side filed any 

such objections and the Court afforded Plaintiff an additional week to account for any 

potential delay in physical mailing. With no objections filed, the Court’s review of the R&R 

is properly limited to a de novo review of only its legal conclusions. See Certain 

Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. PharmaTech, LLC, 2019 WL 4673739, at *1 (M.D. 

Fla. Aug. 19, 2019) (“Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an 

objection.”).

The Court has reviewed the R&R, the entire file, and the record. The Court would 

note that the R&R contains one scrivener’s error in the discussion section. There, under 

Case 0:20-cv-61587-AHS Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

subheading B, the title reads “Claim Against Assistant State Attorney Spencer Scott.”

A thorough review of the pleadings indicates that portion of the claim brought by Plaintiff 

here is only against Assistant State Attorney Sara Mancini. The legal analysis under this 

subheading is however quite correct. The Court has carefully conducted a de novo review 

of Magistrate Judge Reid’s legal conclusions. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that United States Magistrate Judge Reid’s Report 

and Recommendation (DE [10]) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. The Complaint (DE [1]) 

is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case and DENY all pending 

motions as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 26th day of 

October 2020.

Copies to counsel via CM/ECF and Plaintiff, pro se

Case 0:20-cv-61587-AHS Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2020 Page 2 of 2
Administrative Offices Civil and Family Division Criminal Division Jury Office

(512 ) 854

- 9457 (512) 854

- 9457 (512) 854

- 9420 (512) 854

- 9669

fax: 854

- 4744 fax: 854

- 9549 fax: 854

- 4566 fax: 854

- 4457 

## Velva L. Price

Travis County District Clerk

Travis County Courthouse Complex

P.O. Box 679003

Austin, Texas 78767

- 9003

June 10 , 201 5

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kyle

Third Court of Appeals

P.O. Box 12547

Austin, Texas 78711

- 2547

RE: Cause number 03

- 14

- 00665

- CV

Dear Mr. Kyle

,

Please accept this letter as a clarification on the above

- numbered request for information on the

Amended Notice of Appeal submitted to the 3 rd Court of Appeals on June 9, 2015 . As stated in the

letter dated June 9, 2015, our office has not found an Amended Notice of Appeal filed by Mr. Drak e.

However, Mr. Drake does have a 145 page Verified Motion to Reinstate and for New Trial which

was filed with our office on March 2, 2015.

Please correct your records to reflect this correction of the previous letter.

If you have any questions

, plea se contact me at (512) 854

- 4309

.

Sincerely,

Trish Winkler

Deputy Court Clerk I I

Travis County District Clerk’s Office

Civil Division

(512) 854

- 4309
### §92a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 92a was editorially reclassified as section 5323 of this title.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents SECY-02-0169 - 2002 Annual Update - Status of Decommissioning Program Accession Number: ML021950004 Date Released: Tuesday, October 1, 2002 Package Contents The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools. ML022120432 - SECY-02-0169 - 2002 Annual Update - Status of Decommissioning Program (10 page(s), 9/18/2002)
            ML022120439 - SECY-02-0169 - Attachment 1- Decommissioning Program Activities (11 page(s), 9/18/2002)
            ML022120483 - SECY-02-0169 - Attachment 2 - Criteria for Placing Site on the SDMP (1 page(s), 9/18/2002)
            ML022120490 - SECY-02-0169 - Attachment 3 - Current SDMP and Complex Decommissioning Sites (4 page(s), 9/18/2002)
            ML022120494 - SECY-02-0169 - Attachment 4 - Sites Removed from the SDMP after Successful Remediation (4 page(s), 9/18/2002)
            ML022120498 - SECY-02-0169 - Attachment 5 - Sites Removed from the SDMP by Transfer to Agreement States or EPA (3 page(s), 9/18/2002)
            ML022120594 - SECY-02-0169 - Attachment 6 - Contaminated Formerly Licensed Sites (5 page(s), 9/18/2002)
            ML022120561 - SECY-02-0169 - Attachment 7 - Site Status Summaries for SDMP and Complex Decommissioning Sites (48 page(s), 9/18/2002)
            ML022410237 - SECY-02-0169 - Attachment 8- Schedule for Termination of SDMP and Complex Decommissioning Sites (3 page(s), 9/18/2002)
            ML022120620 - SECY-02-0169 - Attachment 9 - Assumptions Used to Develop SDMP and Complex Decommissioning Sites Gantt Charts (5 page(s), 9/18/2002)
            ML022130015 - SECY-02-0169 - Attachment 11- Plant Status Summaries for Fermi1 and Peach Bottom Unit 1 (3 page(s), 5/21/2002)
            ML022130018 - SECY-02-0169 - Attachment 12 - Schedule for Reactor Decommissioning Activities (2 page(s), 9/18/2002)
            ML022130021 - SECY-02-0169 - Attachment 13 - Plant Status Summaries for Research and Test Reactors (2 page(s), 9/18/2002)
            ML022130024 - SECY-02-0169 - Attachment 14 - Title II Site Decommissioning Status (5 page(s), 9/18/2002)
            ML022130031 - SECY-02-0169 - Attachmment 15 - Major Decommissioning Documents (3 page(s), 9/18/2002)


Privacy Policy Site Disclaimer
#### INDIAN CREEK MESQUITE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W.W. WOOD, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-1438.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 10, 2002.

Before MICHEL, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and RADER, Circuit Judge.

*Judgment*

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 20-CV-23482-ALTONAGA 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE REID 

TERRANCE TAYLOR, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., 

 Respondents. 

_____________________________/ 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s pro se Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [ECF No. 1]. This cause has been 

referred to the Undersigned for consideration and report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. Fla. Admin. Order 2019-2. [ECF No. 2]. 

Petitioner, Terrance Taylor, is an immigration detainee who, at the time of 

filing his petition, was held at Glades Detention Facility in Moore Haven, Florida. 

[ECF No. 1]. According to a search of the U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement Online Detainee Locator, Petitioner remains at Glades Detention 

Facility as of the date of this Report. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, “District courts are limited to granting habeas relief 

‘within their respective jurisdictions.’” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 

Case 1:20-cv-23482-CMA Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2020 Page 1 of 3
2 

(2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2441(a)). Thus, “for core habeas petitions challenging 

present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of 

confinement.” Id. at 443. 

Moore Haven is located in Glades County, Florida, which is within the 

jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. 

Accordingly, the Middle District of Florida is Petitioner’s district of confinement. 

Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Petitioner’s case. 

Even so, a district court has the discretion to transfer a case, rather than 

dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction, if such a transfer is “in the interest of justice.” 

Partee v. Att’y. Gen., Ga., 451 F. App’x 856, 858 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) 

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1631). Because Petitioner is a pro se immigration detainee who 

remains in confinement, it is in the interests of justice to transfer, rather than dismiss 

this case for lack of jurisdiction. 

Thus, it is RECOMMENDED that this case be TRANSFERRED to the 

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and the case be 

CLOSED by the Clerk of Court. 

Objections to this Report may be filed with the District Judge within fourteen 

days of receipt of a copy of the Report. Failure to do so will bar a de novo

determination by the District Judge of anything in the Report and Recommendation 

Case 1:20-cv-23482-CMA Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2020 Page 2 of 3
3 

and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the Magistrate Judge. See 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

SIGNED this 4th day of September, 2020. 

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

cc: Terrance Taylor 

A#207103211 

Glades County Detention Center 

Inmate Mail/Parcels 

P.O. Box 39 

Moore Haven, FL 33471 

PRO SE

Case 1:20-cv-23482-CMA Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2020 Page 3 of 3
#### Jane Toscano, as Administratrix of the Estate of Joseph Toscano, Deceased, v. Joseph D. McGoldrick, as Comptroller of the City of New York, et al.

Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Yan Yoorhis, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 795.]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald William SWALLOW, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6272.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 22, 2002.

Before SEYMOUR, PORFILIO, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

PORFILIO, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellant Ronald William Swallow appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court ruled that appellant’s only challenge to his sentence— an attack on the validity of part of a restitution order—was not a cognizable claim under § 2255 because the language of that statute limits relief “only to those prisoners who ‘claim[ ] the right to be released’ from custody.” Rec. Yol. I, doc. 32, at 4 (quoting § 2255). Appellant now contends that this ruling is contrary to both published and unpublished decisions of this circuit. Aplt. Br. at 4.

To proceed on appeal before this court, appellant must obtain a certificate of appealability (COA), *see*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). The district court denied his motion for a COA, and he reurges his motion here. A COA will not issue unless appellant makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” *Id.*§ 2253(c)(2). He can make such a showing by demonstrating that the issues he seeks to raise are debatable among jurists of reason or deserving of further proceedings. *See Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

We conclude that appellant has not met the standards for the issuance of a COA. First, neither his arguments challenging the district court’s interpretation of § 2255 nor his substantive challenge to the restitution order are of constitutional dimension, which is required by the COA standards set forth in § 2253(c)(2). *See United States v. Gordon,*172 F.3d 753, 754 (10th Cir.1999). Further, although there are no decisions by this court that address the availability of § 2255 to challenge a restitution order, all of the circuits that have addressed the issue agree that challenges to restitution may not be considered in § 2255 proceedings. *See United States v. Kramer,*195 F.3d 1129, 1130 *805(9th Cir.1999) (collecting cases). Therefore, appellant has not demonstrated that the issue is debatable among reasonable jurists, and he has not argued that it is deserving of further development.

Appellant’s motion for a COA is DENIED and this appeal is DISMISSED.

*

 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1445 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1445

To designate the western breakwater for the project for navigation, New 
     Haven Harbor, Connecticut, as the ``Charles Hervey Townshend 
                             Breakwater''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2003

 Ms. DeLauro introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the western breakwater for the project for navigation, New 
     Haven Harbor, Connecticut, as the ``Charles Hervey Townshend 
                             Breakwater''.

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

SECTION 1. CHARLES HERVEY TOWNSHEND BREAKWATER, CONNECTICUT.

    The western breakwater for the project for navigation, New Haven 
Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the 1st section of the Act entitled 
``An Act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and 
preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for 
other purposes'', approved September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 426), shall be 
known and designated as the ``Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the breakwater referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Charles Hervey Townshend 
Breakwater''.
                                 <all>
```
|  |
|--|

|  |  |
|--|--|

| ** ** |
|------------|

|   | **BILLIE  HOLIDAY** 
Billie Holiday was born on April 7, 1915, in Baltimore, Maryland and died on July 17, 1959, in New York City. She was arrested in San Francisco in January 1949 on narcotic charges, but was found not guilty by the jury of six men and six women. 
Part 1 
Introduction
Reading Room Index - A   B   C   D   E    F   G- H   I    J    K   L   M   N   -O   P   Q   R   S   T   U-V   W   X   Y   Z   
Electronic Reading Room
- Alphabetical Listing- Espionage-Famous Persons-Gangster Era- Historical Interest- Unusual Phenomena-Violent CrimeFBI              File Fact Sheet FOIA Request Instructions- FOIA Request Form - Privacy Waiver and Certificate of Identity Form Privacy Act Instructions- Privacy Act Request FormDOJ              Reference GuideU.S.              DOJ FOIASearch
All of these publications are in PDF (Portable Document Format). To view them you will need to have the Adobe Acrobat Reader plug-in installed on your computer. The Reader can be downloaded at no cost from Adobe's site on the World Wide Web.   If you have difficulty accessing any material on this site because of a disability, please contact us in writing or via telephone and we will work with you to make the information available.

Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Section    202-324-5520 |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 JOHNENE POLLO, 7 Worker-Appellant, 8 v. No. 30,309 9 CTS and TRAVELERS, 10 Employer/Insurer-Appellees. 11 APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DIVISION 12 Gregory D. Griego, Workers’ Compensation Judge 13 David S. Proffit 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellant 16 Allen, Shepherd, Lewis, Syra & Chapman, P.A. 17 Kimberly A. Syra 18 Albuquerque, NM 19 for Appellee 20 MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 SUTIN, Judge. 222 Summary reversal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed 1 summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary reversal has been filed 2 and the time for doing so has expired. 3 REVERSED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

__________________________________ 6 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 7 WE CONCUR: 8

______________________________ 9 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 10

_______________________________ 11 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 12
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION III

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle, IL 60532

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

No. III-01-026 June 25, 2001

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630)829-9663/e-mail: rjs2@nrc.gov

Pam Alloway-Mueller (630)829-9662/e-mail: pla@nrc.gov

NRC TO MEET WITH NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT COMPANY TO DISCUSS SAFETY

PERFORMANCE AT THE DUANE ARNOLD NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with Nuclear Management Company officials

July 2 to discuss the NRCís annual assessment of safety performance at the Duane Arnold Energy

Center in Palo, Iowa.

The meeting will begin at 7 p.m. CDT at Cedar Rapids City Hall. It will be held in the Council

Chambers on the fourth floor of City Hall, 50 Second Avenue Bridge in Cedar Rapids. The public is

invited to observe the meeting. NRC officials will be available afterwards to answer questions.

The annual assessment, referred to as the End-of-Cycle assessment, evaluates safety

performance at the Duane Arnold plant from April 2000 through March 2001, and informs plant

officials of NRCís plans for future inspections at the facility.

The Duane Arnold assessment letter and inspection are available at

http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr or from the Region III Public Affairs Office. Current performance

information for the plant is available at http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/index.html .

# # #