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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CLARENCE J WILKERSON,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:03-cv-00106-MP-AK

JO ANNE B BARNHART,

Respondent.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter was remanded to the Appeals Council to compile the hearing

transcript (docs. 10 and 11) and the answer and transcript have now been filed (docs.

14 and 15), and it is time for the parties to file memoranda in support of their respective

positions. Plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate that Defendant's decision to deny

benefits was incorrect. Thus, Plaintiff has the burden to file the first memorandum. 

Failure of Plaintiff to file a memorandum specifically addressing the claimed error as

instructed by this order will be deemed to be a failure to prosecute and will result in a

recommendation that this case be dismissed for that reason.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall have until July 3, 2006, to file a memorandum in support of the

complaint. The memorandum shall set forth Plaintiff's legal contentions and shall cite

the record by page number for every factual contention.

2. Defendant shall have 30 days from receipt of Plaintiff's memorandum in which

to file a response and shall cite the record by page number for every factual contention. 

3. Neither memorandum shall exceed 35 pages without a showing of good

Case 1:03-cv-00106-MP-AK Document 18 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:03-cv-00106-MP-AK

cause and approval by the court; the page limit of Local Rule 7.1 is so modified.

DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 2006. 

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-00106-MP-AK Document 18 Filed 05/02/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2213 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2213

To incorporate into the design and construction of reconfigured and new 
 ports of entry certain concerns relating to border location-dependent 
                  businesses, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 2013

Mr. McCaul (for himself and Mr. Cuellar) introduced the following bill; 
   which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in 
 addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To incorporate into the design and construction of reconfigured and new 
 ports of entry certain concerns relating to border location-dependent 
                  businesses, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Border Communities Economic Security 
and Sustainability Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. INCORPORATION INTO THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF RECONFIGURED 
              AND NEW PORTS OF ENTRY OF CERTAIN CONCERNS RELATING TO 
              BORDER LOCATION-DEPENDENT BUSINESSES.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security and the Administrator of the General Services 
Administration, as an ongoing part of the efforts of the Department of 
Homeland Security and the General Services Administration to 
reconfigure and make more secure the country's ports of entry, shall 
coordinate to the extent practicable to ensure that appropriate 
measures are taken to accommodate preexisting and border location-
dependent businesses into the design and construction of reconfigured 
and new ports of entry.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 29.2532 Lot.

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

[37 FR 13626, July 12, 1972. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MATHEW SELOVER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv4698-TKW-HTC

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD

OF COMMISSIONERS and

RAYME EDLER,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER

This case is before the Court on Defendant Rayme Elder’s motion to stay 

discovery pending a decision on the qualified immunity defense that she will be 

asserting in a forthcoming motion to dismiss (Doc. 9). The motion represents that it 

is opposed and, therefore, the Court will await Plaintiff’s response before ruling on 

the motion. However, because the Dr. Elder’s deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s 

outstanding discovery requests will expire before Plaintiff’s deadline for responding

to the motion to stay,1the Court will toll the deadline for Dr. Elder to respond to the

discovery requests until the Court rules on the motion to stay. The other deadlines 

in the initial scheduling order will not be tolled at this time.

1

 The discovery responses are due on April 13, 2020, see Doc. 9, at 2, and the response to 

the motion to stay is due on April 21, 2020, see N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(E).

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 14 Filed 04/09/20 Page 1 of 2
2

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the deadline for Dr. Elder to respond to 

Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests is tolled while the motion to stay (Doc. 9) 

is under advisement, but the parties shall comply with the other deadlines in the 

initial scheduling order pending further order of the Court.

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of April, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 14 Filed 04/09/20 Page 2 of 2
§ 201.51b Purity procedures for coated seed. ( a ) The working sample for coated seed is obtained as described in § 201.46(d) (1) and (2), and weighed in grams to four significant figures.
( b ) Any loose coating material shall be sieved, weighed, and included with the inert matter component.
( c ) Coating material is removed from the seed by washing with water or other solvents such as, but not limited to, dilute sodium hydroxide (NaOH). Use of fine mesh sieves is recommended for this procedure, and stirring or shaking the coated units may be necessary to obtain de-coated seed.
( d ) Spread de-coated seed on blotters or filter paper in a shallow container. Air dry overnight at room temperature.
( e ) Separation of component parts: ( 1 ) Kind or variety considered pure seed.
( 2 ) Other crop seed.
( 3 ) Inert matter.
( 4 ) Weed seed.
( f ) The de-coated seed shall be separated into four components in accordance with §§ 201.48 through 201.51. §§ 201.51a (a) and (b) shall not be followed. The weight of the coating material is determined by subtracting the sum of the weights of the other four components from the original weight of the working sample. The percentage of coating material shall be included with the inert matter percentage. Calculate percentages of all components based on the original weight of the working sample (see paragraph (a) of this section).
[59 FR 64499, Dec. 14, 1994]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1942

#### Editorial Notes:

Nomenclature changes to part 1942 appear at 80 FR 9878, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1942.31-1942.49 [Reserved]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMES W. BARCLAY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20cv142-MW/HTC

E. HAND, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and 

Recommendation, ECF No. 14, and has also reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s objections 

to the report and recommendation, ECF No. 15. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted, over Plaintiff’s

objections, as this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “This 

case is DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.”

The Clerk shall also close the file. 

SO ORDERED on June 8, 2020.

s/ MARK E. WALKER

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00142-MW-HTC Document 16 Filed 06/08/20 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Byron Rogers, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of County Court, Nassau County, rendered August 12, 1976, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, and rape in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. (See *People v Henderson, 73*AD2d 675.) Lazer, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
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 Annual Report of InrobTech Ltd. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), I, Ben-Tsur
Joseph, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities and 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/_______________
Ben-Tsur Joseph
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
Editorial Note on Part 1940
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1940 appear at 80 FR 9876, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1940.953 Definitions. For the purpose of this subpart: *Administrator.* The Administrator of Rural Business—Cooperative Service, Rural Housing Service, or Rural Utilities Service.
*Area plan.* The long-range development plan developed for a local or regional area in a State.
*Designated agency.* An agency selected by the Governor of the State to provide the panel and the State Coordinator with support for the daily operation of the panel.
*Designated rural development program.* A program carried out under sections 304(b), 306(a), or subsections (a) through (f) and (h) of section 310B of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)), as amended, or under section 1323 of the Food Security Act of 1985, for which funds are available at any time during the FY under such section, including, but not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) Water and Waste Disposal Insured or Guaranteed Loans;
( 2 ) Development Grants for Community Domestic Water and Waste Disposal Systems;
( 3 ) Technical Assistance and Training Grants;
( 4 ) Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants;
( 5 ) Community Facilities Insured and Guaranteed Loans;
( 6 ) Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans;
( 7 ) Industrial Development Grants;
( 8 ) Intermediary Relending Program;
( 9 ) Drought and Disaster Relief Guaranteed Loans;
( 10 ) Disaster Assistance for Rural Business Enterprises;
( 11 ) Nonprofit National Rural Development and Finance Corporations.
*Designated State.* A State selected by the Under Secretary, in accordance with § 1940.954 of this subpart, to participate in this program.
*Eligible State.* With respect to a FY, a State that has been determined eligible in accordance with § 1940.954 (e) of this subpart.
*Nondesignated State.* A State that has not been selected to participate in this pilot program.
*Qualified project.* Any project: ( 1 ) For which the designated agency has identified alternative Federal, State, local or private sources of assistance and has identified related activities in the State; and
( 2 ) To which the Administrator is required to provide assistance.
*State.* Any of the fifty States.
*State coordinator.* The officer or employee of the State appointed by the Governor to carry out the activities described in § 1940.957 of this subpart.
*State Director.* The head of Rural Development at the local level charged with administering designated rural development programs.
*State rural economic development review panel or “panel”.* An advisory panel that meets the requirements of § 1940.956 of this subpart.
*Under Secretary.* In the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Under Secretary for Small Community and Rural Development.
#### § 27.9 Classing Offices; Quality Assurance Division.

Classing Offices shall be maintained at points designated for the purpose by the Administrator. The Quality Assurance Division shall provide supervision of futures cotton classification and perform other duties as assigned by the Deputy Administrator.

[ 77 FR 5380, Feb. 3, 2012]
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 15

- 1 411C

(Filed : September 15, 2016 )

*************************************

MARK MUNNS et al., *

*

Plaintiff s

, * Transfer Case; Rule to Show Cause;

* RCFC 41(b)

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant. *

*************************************

William Palmer

, Sacramento

, CA , for plaintiff

.

Sean Siekkinen

, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant.

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

SWEENEY , Judge

On November 23, 2015, the instant case was transferred to the undersigned from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The record consisted of

certified copies of the district court order, the docket sheet, and a certifie d copy of the mandate

from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That same day, the Clerk’s Office

made an entry on the docket indicating that plaintiffs’ attorney was not admitted to practice

before the United States Court of Federal Claims and further indicating that attorney admission

instructions and forms were sent to counsel and were also available on the court’s website. On

January 4, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs’ unopposed motion, pursuant to Rule 6.1 of the

Rules of the U nited States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”)

, for an additional thirty days

within which to file the transfer or amended complaint and to obtain admission to the court’s bar.

A timely transfer complaint was filed on January 29, 2016.

On June 1, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On June 20, 2016, the

government moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1) for lack of

jurisdiction and pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. Plaintiffs’ response to the motion to dismiss was due by July 21, 2016. On August 19,

2016, the court ordered plaintiffs to show cause why their complaint should not be dismissed for

failure to prosecute their case.

RCFC 41(b) provides:(b) Involuntary Dismissal; Effect. If the plaintiff fails to

prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, the court

may dismiss on its own motion or the defendant may move to

dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal

order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and

any dismissal not under this rule

— except one for lack of

jurisdiction or failure to join a party under RCFC 19

— operates as

an adjudication on the merits.

Because plaintiffs have failed to compl y with the court’s order to show case, the court dismisses

plaintiffs’ c omplaint for failure to prosecute

, pursuant to RCFC 41(b). Costs to defendant. The

clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Margaret M. Sweeney

MARGARET M. SWEENEY

Judge
Exhibit 32.2**Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906**In connection with the quarterly report of Orchids Paper Products Company (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Keith R. Schroeder, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 ofTitle 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                   /s/ Keith R. Schroeder   Keith R. Schroeder   Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1 There is no dispute that the 50-month sentence imposed is

within a properly calculated guideline range.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 23, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40945

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JORGE ALBERTO SALAVERRIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:06-CR-40

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jorge Alberto Salaverria appeals the 50-month term of

imprisonment imposed after his guilty plea to an indictment

charging him with illegal re-entry following deportation. 

Salaverria contends that the district court reversibly erred by

imposing a guidelines sentence without considering his reasons

for coming to this country in light of the sentencing factors

listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).1 The record reflects that the

district court considered the statutory sentencing factors;
No. 06-40945

-2-

Salaverria has not shown that the sentence was unreasonable or

that this court should not defer to the district court’s

determinations at sentencing. See United States v. Mares, 402

F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Salaverria contends that the enhancement provisions of

18 U.S.C. § 1326 are unconstitutional on their face and as

applied in this case. He argues, in light of Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), that his 50-month term of

imprisonment exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for

the § 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. He challenges

the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony

and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather

than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. 

Salverria’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 

Although he contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly

decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule

Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, we have repeatedly

rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres

remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268,

276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Salverria

properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of

Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to

preserve it for further review. 

AFFIRMED.
§ 205.503 Applicant information. A private or governmental entity seeking accreditation as a certifying agent must submit the following information: ( a ) The business name, primary office location, mailing address, name of the person(s) responsible for the certifying agent's day-to-day operations, contact numbers (telephone, facsimile, and Internet address) of the applicant, and, for an applicant who is a private person, the entity's taxpayer identification number;
( b ) The name, office location, mailing address, and contact numbers (telephone, facsimile, and Internet address) for each of its organizational units, such as chapters or subsidiary offices, and the name of a contact person for each unit;
( c ) Each area of operation (crops, wild crops, livestock, or handling) for which accreditation is requested and the estimated number of each type of operation anticipated to be certified annually by the applicant along with a copy of the applicant's schedule of fees for all services to be provided under these regulations by the applicant;
( d ) The type of entity the applicant is (e.g., government agricultural office, for-profit business, not-for-profit membership association) and for: ( 1 ) A governmental entity, a copy of the official's authority to conduct certification activities under the Act and the regulations in this part,
( 2 ) A private entity, documentation showing the entity's status and organizational purpose, such as articles of incorporation and by-laws or ownership or membership provisions, and its date of establishment; and
( e ) A list of each State or foreign country in which the applicant currently certifies production and handling operations and a list of each State or foreign country in which the applicant intends to certify production or handling operations.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1951

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Some of the exhibits referenced in this part 1951 are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Exhibits are available in any Rural Development office.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1951 appear at 80 FR 9890-9894, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1951.228-1951.229 [Reserved]
#### E. Raymond Franchell et al., Appellants, v Robert Sims et al., Respondents.

Motion to clarify opinion and amend remittitur order granted to the extent that the opinion and remittitur order are amended to reflect that the judgment is reversed and a new trial granted solely on the issue of damages unless defendants stipulate to increase the amount of the verdict in the action. Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Doerr, JJ. [73 AD2d 1.]
2006-0724.

#### State v. Lewis.

Summit App. No. 22534, 2006-Ohio-654. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion granted.

Resnick, O’Connor and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:97CR99/RV

TODD DEWAYNE WILSON

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Senior Judge Roger Vinson on October 1, 2008

Motion/Pleadings: Motion to Reduce Sentence and Supplemental Motion to Reduce Sentence

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2) 

Filed by Defendant on 3/07/2008 and

6/26/2008 

 Doc.# 343 and 350

RESPONSES:

 on Doc.# 

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

 Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

 s/Jerry Marbut

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Jerry Marbut

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 19th day of 

 June , 2009, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) See separate order (AO 247).

 /s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:97-cr-00099-RV Document 355 Filed 06/19/09 Page 1 of 1