alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DIMITRI PATTERSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv04349-MCR-MJF

UNITED STATES, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation dated June 2, 2020. ECF No. 2. The parties have been furnished 

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity

to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have 

made a de novo determination of all timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections 

thereto timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should 

be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this Order.

Case 3:20-cv-04349-MCR-MJF Document 3 Filed 06/30/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv4349-MCR-MJF

2. This action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for 

the Southern District of Florida.

3. The clerk of the court is directed to close the case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of June 2020.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-04349-MCR-MJF Document 3 Filed 06/30/20 Page 2 of 2
#### FECHNER, Appellant, v. CENTRAL NEW ENGLAND R. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department

October 5, 1906.)

Action by Adolph Fechner, Jr., against the Central New England Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JAY M. RINGGOLD

, §

§ No. 76, 2016

Defendant Below, §

Appellant, § Court Below : Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

v. §

§ Cr. ID No. 1006015765

STATE OF DELAWARE, §

§

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: June 10 , 201 6

Decided: August 29 , 2016

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ

, Justices.

O R D E R

This 29 th day of August 2016

, the Court has carefully considered the

parties’ briefs and the record in this appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of a

“motion for credit for time served” filed by the appellant, Jay M. Ringgold

.

Ringgold sought to have 51 days of credit for time served applied to the sentence

imposed on J une 3, 2011 for his most recent conviction of Possession of a Deadly

Weapon by a Person Prohibited (“PDWBPP”). We conclude that the Superior

Court’s judgment should be affirmed on the basis of the court’s order dated

February 2, 2016.

Having closely reviewed the record, it is clear to the Court that the Superior

Court credited all time served by Ringgold appropriately

, and in accordance with2

the arguments for leniency made by his attorney on his behalf at sentencing on

June 3, 2011. T h e reality is that Ringgold received the minimum sentence the

court could have imposed for the PDWBPP conviction, eight years, when he was

eligible for a life sentence

. I n the June 3, 2011 sentence order, the Superior Court

properly credited Ringgold for 5 5 days of time served on that conviction in 2010.

Also, t he court discharged Ringgold from probation on prior convictions for which

the court could have reimposed substantial additional incarceration . When

granting him this favorable treatment, the Super ior Court took into account the

time Ringgold spent incarcerated on the V O P charges, including the 51 days in

2011 on which he now focuses

. 1

N OW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that th e judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice

1 In a confusing brief, the Dep a r t m e n t o f J u s t i c e suggests that there may be potential issues with

other time Rin ggold served. These issues were not presented to the Superior Court, were not

argued by Ringgold himself, and there is no proper or reliable basis for us to consider these

issues in this case.
```

[108th Congress Private Law 2]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:pvtl002.108]
Private Law 108-2
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To amend the Railroad Right-of-Way Conveyance Validation Act to validate 
additional conveyances of certain lands in the State of California that 
form part of the right-of-way granted by the United States to facilitate 
    the construction of the transcontinental railway, and for other 
            purposes. <<NOTE: Oct. 5, 2004 -  [H.R. 1658]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in <<NOTE: Railroad Right-of-Way Conveyance 
Validation Act of 2004.>> Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Railroad Right-of-Way Conveyance 
Validation Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. VALIDATION OF ADDITIONAL RAILROAD CONVEYANCES, SAN JOAQUIN 
            COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

    Section 4 of the Railroad Right-of-Way Conveyance Validation Act 
(Private Law 103-2; 108 Stat. 5061) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new paragraphs:
            ``(9) The conveyance entered into between the Central 
        Pacific Railway Company and the Southern Pacific Transportation 
        Company and the Bank of America, as trustee of the last will and 
        testament of Aaron Herschel, recorded September 27, 1945, in 
        volume 942 at page 401 of the official records of the county of 
        San Joaquin.
            ``(10) The conveyance entered into between the Central 
        Pacific Railway Company and the Southern Pacific Transportation 
        Company and the Tri-Valley Packing Association, recorded 
        November 13, 1957, in volume 2016 at page 149 of the official 
        records of the county of San Joaquin.''.

    Approved October 5, 2004.
```
#### § 27.58 Postponed classification; must be within 30 days.

If thereafter the classification of the cotton be desired, notice thereof shall be filed not later than the expiration of 30 days after the date upon which the samples were drawn from the cotton, and the original samples must have remained continuously in the possession of the Marketing Services Office or under its control.

[48 FR 49212, Oct. 25, 1983]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 18, 2020

No. 04-20-00469-CV

IN THE MATTER OF D.J.S.

From the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017JUV00148

Honorable Carlos Quezada Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On October 21, 2020, appellant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw due to a conflict of 

interest. No party has opposed the motion. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. We abate 

this case to the trial court and ORDER the trial court to appoint new counsel. The trial court is 

further ORDERED to file a supplemental clerk’s record in this court, no later than December 18, 

2020, which shall include any orders appointing or substituting counsel. All appellate filing 

deadlines are ABATED pending further orders from this court.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of November, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
CERTIFICATION



I, Bruce Hollingshead, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4.

The registrants other certifying officers, if any, and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I (we) have:



(a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

(b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (Evaluation Date); and

(c)

presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

The registrants other certifying officers, if any, and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



(a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

(b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and



6.

The registrants other certifying officers, if any, and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were any significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.







/s/ Bruce Hollingshead

Date: July 16, 2007

Bruce Hollingshead, President/Director

Chief Executive Officer
§ 1486.400 Cost share. ( a ) The EMP is intended to complement, not supplant, the efforts of the U.S. private sector. Therefore, no private sector proposal will be considered without the element of cost share from the Recipient and/or U.S. partners.
( b ) There is no minimum or maximum required amount of cost share. The degree of commitment to a proposed project, represented by the amount and type of private funding, is used as one factor in determining which proposals will be approved. The type of cost share is also not specified, though some contributions are ineligible (see § 1486.402). Cost share may be actual cash invested or professional time of staff assigned to the project. Proposals in which the private sector is willing to commit funds, rather than in-kind items such as staff resources, and those with higher amounts of cost share will be given priority consideration.
( c ) Cost share is not required for proposals from Federal, state, or local government agencies. It is mandatory from all other eligible entities, even when they are party to a joint proposal with a government agency.
( d ) Contributions from foreign (non-U.S.) organizations may not be counted toward the cost share requirement but may be included in the total cost of the project.
( e ) An activity that is undertaken by an entity at the request of FAS may be exempted from the cost share requirement. This determination is made at the discretion of FAS.
( f ) A Recipient's cost share requirement will be specified in the agreement and approval letter. If a Recipient fails to contribute the total specified in the agreement, the difference between the amount contributed and the total amount required must be repaid to CCC in U.S. dollars within six months after the end of the period of performance of the agreement. If a Recipient is reimbursed by CCC for less than the amount of funds approved in the agreement, then the final required cost share shall equal, on a percentage basis, the original ratio of cost share to the authorized EMP funding level.
FILED COURT OF APPEALS'ON1 "STATE OF WASHINGTON 

### 2017DEC 18 Atill: 18 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No.76560-4-1 Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) DOMINIQUE JAY WARE, ) ) Appellant. ) ) PER CURIAM — Dominique Ware appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm. Ware contends,and the State concedes,that the State failed to carry its burden of proving that his 2008 conviction for possession of marijuana with intentto deliver did notwash out. After the State filed its brief conceding error and requesting a remand "to allow the parties to present any evidence relevant to ensure the accuracy of[Ware's] criminal history and offender score,"Ware moved for accelerated review. Ware argues that if the State fails to carry its burden of proofon remand,and "[i]f he is to benefitfrom a reduction in his sentence,his appeal must be resolved expeditiously." We acceptthe State's concession,grant accelerated review,and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Remanded. FOR THE COURT: UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: 

### DEC 1 8 2017



# rt3e-lee4e)
Exhibit 13.2

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 China Natural Resources, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,Wong Wah On Edward, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Wong Wah On Edward

Wong Wah On Edward

Chief Financial Officer

April 29, 2013

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
97-980.

#### Columbus Civ. Serv. Comm. v. McGlone.

Franklin App. Nos, 96APE08-1032 and 96APE08-1083. Reported at 82 Ohio St.3d 569, 697 N.E.2d 204. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Douglas, J., dissents.
#### Helen M. Caputi, Respondent, v Loblaw, Inc., Appellant.

Judg-ment unanimously affirmed, with costs (see *Taylor v New York City Tr. Auth.,*48 NY2d 903; *O’Rourke v Namm & Son,*295 NY 983). (Appeal from judgment of Erie Supreme Court—negligence.) Present—Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Doerr, Witmer and Moule, JJ.
#### § 28.58 New memorandum or certificate; issuance.

Upon the written request of a holder of a cotton class memorandum or certificate issued under this subpart, a new memorandum or certificate shall be issued, without the reclassification of the cotton, to take the place of the former memorandum or certificate for any cotton covered thereby, when necessary on account of the breaking or splitting of a lot or otherwise for the business convenience of such holder. In any case where a new memorandum or certificate is requested in accordance with this section the former memorandum or certificate shall be surrendered for cancellation, and such new memorandum or certificate shall bear a new number and the date of its issuance and the date of original classification and shall otherwise comply with this subpart.
EXHIBIT 23
                                   ----------




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS








ASA International Ltd.
Framingham, Massachusetts




     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
Statement No. 33-312933 of ASA International Ltd. on Form S-8 of our report
dated February 27, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial statements of
ASA International Ltd. appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2003.




/s/Sansiveri, Kimball & McNamee, L.L.P.


Sansiveri, Kimball & McNamee, L.L.P.


Providence, Rhode Island
March 30, 2004
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

Editorial Note on Part 279
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 279 appear at 68 FR 41052, July 10, 2003.

§ 279.2 Manner of filing requests for review. ( a ) *Submitting requests for review.* Requests for review submitted by firms shall be mailed to or filed with Director, Administrative Review Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302.
( b ) *Content of requests.* Requests for review shall be in writing and shall state the name and business address of the firm involved, and the name, address and position with the firm of the person who signed the request. The request shall be signed by the owner of the firm, an officer or partner of the firm, or by counsel, and need not be under oath.
( c ) *Time limit for requesting review.* A request for review shall be filed within 10 days of the date of delivery of the notice of the action for which review is requested. For purposes of determining whether a filing date is timely: ( 1 ) The filing date shall be the postmark date of the request, or equivalent if the written request is filed by a means other than mail;
( 2 ) In computing the 10 day period, the day of delivery of the notice of the action for which review is requested may not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday. In that case, the period runs until the end of the next day which is not a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday. As used in this paragraph, “legal holiday” includes New Year's Day, Washington's Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and any other day designated as a holiday by the President or the Congress of the United States.
[Amdt. 136, 43 FR 43279, Sept. 22, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 236, 49 FR 22058, May 25, 1984. Redesignated and amended at 68 FR 41053, July 10, 2003]
## In The **Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo** 

________________________ No. 07 - 21 - 0019 2 - CR ________________________ EX PARTE WILLIAM DONALD STANLEY On Appeal from the 31st District Court Gray C ounty, Texas Trial Court No. 11377 ; Honorable Phil N. Vanderpool , Presiding January 24 , 20 2 2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PIRTLE and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. Appellant, William Donald Stanley , appeals from the trial court’s Order on Motion to Set Reasonable Bond . Pending before this c ourt is A ppellant’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal. As required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a), the motion to dismiss is signed by A ppellant and his attorney. As no decision of the c ourt has been delivered, the m otion is granted and the appeal is dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith. Per Curiam Do not publish.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement 
(Form S-2 No. 33-63785) of Interleaf, Inc. and in the related Prospectus, the 
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-03761) of Interleaf, Inc. and in the 
related Prospectus, the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 No. 33-8933, No. 
33-14529, No. 33-30218 and No. 33-59794) pertaining to the 1983 Stock Option 
Plan of Interleaf, Inc., the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 No. 33-13249, 
No. 33-30219, No. 33-40663 and No. 33-69066) pertaining to the 1987 Employee 
Stock Purchase Plan of Interleaf, Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8 
No. 33-30220) pertaining to the 1989 Director Stock Option Plan of Interleaf, 
Inc., the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 No. 33-69068, No. 33-61051 and 
No. 33-38099) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan of Interleaf, Inc., 
the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-80864) pertaining to the 1993 
Director Stock Option Plan of Interleaf, Inc., the Registration Statement 
(Forms S-8 No. 33-84214 and No. 33-38701) pertaining to the 1994 Employee 
Stock Option Plan of Interleaf, Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-3 
No. 33-38723) of Interleaf, Inc. and in the related Prospectus, the 
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-44133) of Interleaf, Inc. and in the 
related Prospectus, and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-56145), 
and in the related Prospectus, pertaining to the 1997 Key Man Stock Option 
Plan and Agreement of Interleaf, Inc., the 1998 Key Man Stock Option Plan and 
Agreement of Interleaf, Inc. and the 1993 Stock Option Plan of Interleaf, 
Inc., of our report dated May 13, 1998, with respect to the consolidated 
financial statements and schedule of Interleaf, Inc. included in the Annual 
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31, 1998.


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
---------------------
Boston, Massachusetts
June 29, 1998
#### §§ 1738.110-1738.150 [Reserved]
#### § 29.1033 Lot.

A pile, basket, bulk, or more than one bale, case, hogshead, tierce, package, or other definite package unit.

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977. Redesignated at 49 FR 16755, Apr. 20, 1984, and 51 FR 25027, July 10, 1986]
#### § 2812.8 Accountability and recordkeeping.

USDA requires that property requested by a donee be placed into use by the donee within a year of receipt and used for at least 1 year thereafter. Donees must maintain accountable records for such property during this time period.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOEY ARNEZ DONALDSON,

DOC # 372350,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:20cv76–WS/MAF

OFFICER HAWKINS, and

OFFICER BENNETT,

Defendants.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 64) docketed June 4, 2021. The magistrate judge recommends that Defendant

Bennett’s motion (ECF No. 63) to set aside the clerk’s entry of default be granted.

No objections to the report and recommendation have been filed.

Having considered the record, the court finds that the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation is due to be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 64) is
Page 2 of 2

hereby ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. Defendant Bennett’s motion (ECF No. 63) to set aside the clerk’s entry of

default is GRANTED.

3. The clerk’s entry of default (ECF No. 60) is VACATED AND SET

ASIDE.

4. The clerk shall return the case to the magistrate judge for further

proceedings.

DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of July , 2021.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE