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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

CHARITO MELVIN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 5:20cv51-MW/ZCB

WALMART, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Recommendation. ECF No. 139. This Court does not lightly dismiss cases based on 

a plaintiff’s failure to attend their deposition but given Plaintiff’s repeated refusals 

to sit for her deposition notwithstanding ample opportunities provided to her and 

counsel’s attempts to make it as convenient as possible, this Court agrees with the 

Magistrate Judge that this sanction is appropriate here. Upon consideration, no 

objections1 having been filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

1 Indeed, Plaintiff has also had ample opportunity to file objections, and she has proven to 

be adept at filing papers with this Court throughout the pendency of this case.

Case 5:20-cv-00051-MW-ZCB Document 140 Filed 02/22/23 Page 1 of 2
2

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 139, is accepted and adopted as 

this Court’s opinion. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 132, is GRANTED. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with 

prejudice.” Plaintiff’s motions, ECF Nos. 122 and 128, are DENIED as moot. The 

Clerk shall close the file.

SO ORDERED on February 22, 2023.

s/Mark E. Walker ____

Chief United States District Judge

Case 5:20-cv-00051-MW-ZCB Document 140 Filed 02/22/23 Page 2 of 2
(December 15, 1966)

#### Abraham Strauss, Respondent, v. Bennett Brothers Corp. et al., Defendants. Bennett Brothers Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Order entered August 30, 1965, denying the third-party defendant-appellant’s motion for a severance of the third-party action, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to said appellant, and the motion therefor granted. The third-party complaint is grounded on an insurance policy allegedly indemnifying the third-party plaintiff against the tort claim underlying the complaint. Plaintiff’s action will be tried before a jury. The fact of insurance relative to the occurrence complained of by plaintiff will be prejudicial as a matter of law as to -the third-party defendant-appellant. *(Kelly*v. *Yannotti,*4 N Y 2d 603; *Rauch*v. *Berlin,*24 A D 2d 976.) Concur—Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.
## Other Youth Topics

## Breadcrumb

            -  Youth Topics 
            -  Violence Prevention 
            -           National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention Communities: Philadelphia      

# National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention Communities: Philadelphia

Every young person in Philadelphia has a fundamental right to live in a safe neighborhood with the opportunity to realize a fulfilling adult life.  To prevent youth violence in Philadelphia, we will strive to create safe environments that support the development of healthy, thriving, productive citizens through a city-wide, multi-disciplinary approach aligning prevention, intervention, enforcement, re-entry, and data evaluation efforts.

###### Points of Contact:

**Richard Greenwald**Executive Director and Assistant to the Mayor for Youth Violence PreventionCity of Philadelphia215-686-0334richard.greenwald@phila.gov

**Julie Wertheimer**Deputy Director for Policy, Programs and AdministrationCity of Philadelphia215-686-2131julie.wertheimer@phila.gov

## Resources

                        - City of Philadelphia’s Strategic Plan to Prevent Youth Violence

## Main navigation

- Baltimore
- Cleveland
- Long Beach
- Louisville
- Boston
- Camden
- Chicago
- Detroit
- Memphis
- Minneapolis
- New Orleans
- Philadelphia
- Salinas
- San Jose
- Seattle
#### § 1784.30 Subsequent grants.

Subsequent grants will be processed in accordance with the requirements set forth in this part. The initial and subsequent grants made to complete a previously approved project must comply with the maximum grant requirements set forth in§ 1784.8(f) of this part.
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, Peter Wilson, the Chief Executive Officer and William Thomas, Chief Financial Officer of Morgan Creek Energy Corp., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Morgan Creek Energy Corp. for quarter ended June 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Morgan Creek Energy Corp.





Date: August 12, 2010





/s/   Peter Wilson"Peter Wilson

President, Chief Executive Officer





/s/   "William Thomas"William Thomas

Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Morgan Creek Energy Corp. and will be retained by Morgan Creek Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 1787.13 Public interest or impracticality. ( a ) By application pursuant to § 1787.10, the Administrator may waive the Buy American requirement upon a showing that application of the requirement would be inconsistent with the public interest or impractical for the RUS Borrower. With respect to impracticality, an RUS Borrower may request a waiver upon a showing that the domestic product is incompatible or impractical to integrate with existing, significant capital infrastructure or existing, critical software already in use. Notwithstanding, the burden shall rest with the RUS Borrower to present how the use of the domestic product would create a hardship or negatively impact its project.
( b ) With respect to contracts that were approved by RUS based on a bidder or offer that originally certified compliance with the Buy America requirements, but which can no longer comply with such certification, the Administrator may grant an impracticality waiver based on a showing that the original certification was made in good faith and that the product cannot now be obtained domestically due to commercial impossibility or impracticability, or without undue hardship or a negative impact to the project.
( c ) In determining whether to issue any public interest waiver, the Administrator will consider all appropriate factors on a case-by-case basis, unless a general waiver has already been issued by the Administrator with respect to the product.
<PAGE>



                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.33.1


Schedule identifying substantially identical agreements, between Visteon
Corporation ("Visteon") and each of the persons named below, to Executive
Retiree Health Care Agreement constituting Exhibit 10.33 to the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Visteon for the period ended December 31, 2004.


                                      Name
                               Michael F. Johnston
                                James C. Orchard
                                 James F. Palmer
==============================================================================


                                 UNITED STATES
                      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                            Washington, D.C. 20549



                                   FORM 8-K



                                CURRENT REPORT



    Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



      Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported):  July 3, 2003
                                                        --------------



                   Registrant, State of
Commission            Incorporation,               I.R.S. Employer
File Number    Address and Telephone Number     Identification Number
------------  --------------------------------  ---------------------

  1-7297      Nicor Inc.                          36-2855175
              (An Illinois Corporation)
              1844 Ferry Road
              Naperville, Illinois 60563-9600
              (630) 305-9500






==============================================================================



<PAGE>


                                                             Page 1

Item 7.  Financial Statements and Exhibits
-------  ---------------------------------

The following is filed as an exhibit to this report.

Exhibit
Number          Description
-------         -----------

99.1      Press release of Nicor Inc. issued July 3, 2003.



Item 9.   Regulation FD Disclosure
-------   ------------------------

The information in the attached Nicor Inc. press release issued July 3, 2003 is
being provided under Items 9 and 12.



<PAGE>


                                                             Page 2

Signature

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.




                                    Nicor Inc.


Date   July 3, 2003                 /s/ KATHLEEN L.HALLORAN
      --------------                ---------------------------
                                    Kathleen L. Halloran
                                    Executive Vice President
                                    Finance and Administration







<PAGE>


                                                             Page 3

Exhibit Index
-------------
  Exhibit
  Number                  Description of Document
  -------            ------------------------------------------------
    99.1             Press release of Nicor Inc. issued July 3, 2003.
#### Lillian Cowan, Respondent, v George Stubblebine, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of plaintiff, entered October 19, 1978 in Ulster County, upon a decision of the court at Trial Term, without a jury. Seeking to recover certain chattels allegedly wrongfully detained by defendant and also damages for their alleged wrongful detention, plaintiff instituted this action by the service of summons and complaint on June 9, 1977. When the matter was called for trial on the morning of October 12, 1978, however, she abandoned her cause of action for damages and requested a nonjury trial. Upon consulting with his attorney, defendant then expressly waived through his attorney any right which he had to a jury trial, and the case was adjourned with the taking of proof scheduled to commence that same day at 1:30 p.m. When the court reconvened that afternoon and the trial was about to begin, however, defendant made last minute requests for a jury trial and for an adjournment so that he could obtain new counsel and have available to testify witnesses who were not then present. Both these requests were denied, and the matter was tried without a jury with the result that a judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff. On this appeal, defendant argues solely that the *751trial court erred in denying him a jury trial. We disagree. Even assuming, *arguendo,*that defendant had a right to a jury trial in this instance, a doubtful proposition since his defense was apparently equitable in nature (see CPLR 4101), it is nonetheless clear that he intentionally and intelligently waived a jury trial upon the advice of counsel and that his waiver was the product of neither inadvertence nor procedural error. Moreover, the granting of his request to revoke his waiver would have resulted in undue hardship, delay and prejudice to plaintiff who had traveled from southern New Jersey for the scheduled commencement of the trial on October 12, 1978. Under these circumstances, the court plainly did not abuse its discretion in proceeding to trial without a jury (CPLR 4102, subd [e]; *Heller v Hacken,*40 AD2d 1012; cf. *International Min. Corp. v Aerovías Nacionales De Colombia S. A.,*49 ÁD2d 855). Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Kane, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
98-1291.

#### Holzemer v. Urbanski.

Lucas App. No. L-97-1257.

F.E. Sweeney and Cook, JJ., dissent.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1930 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1930

To prohibit the manufacture, marketing, sale, or shipment in interstate 
   commerce of products designed to assist in defrauding a drug test.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2013

 Mr. Engel (for himself and Mr. Terry) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the manufacture, marketing, sale, or shipment in interstate 
   commerce of products designed to assist in defrauding a drug test.

    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 ``Drug Testing Integrity Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. BAN OF PRODUCTS DESIGNED TO DEFRAUD DRUG TESTS.

    (a) Conduct Prohibited.--It shall be unlawful to knowingly 
manufacture, market, sell, ship, or otherwise provide to another 
individual any product with the intent to assist such other individual 
to use such product to defraud a drug test.
    (b) Definition.--As used in this Act, the term ``defraud a drug 
test'' means--
            (1) submit a substance that purports to be from an 
        individual other than its actual source, or purports to have 
        been excreted or collected other than when it was actually 
        excreted or collected; or
            (2) engage in any other conduct with the intent to produce 
        a false or misleading outcome of a test for the presence of a 
        controlled substance.

SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

    (a) Unfair and Deceptive Act or Practice.--A violation of section 2 
shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or 
deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the 
Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
    (b) Enforcement Authority.--The Federal Trade Commission shall 
enforce this Act in the same manner, by the same means, and with the 
same jurisdiction as though all applicable terms and provisions of the 
Federal Trade Commission Act were incorporated into and made a part of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 27, 2017

No. 04-17-00296-CR

Juan Guzman ZUNIGA, JR.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006CR5239

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On May 8, 2017, appellant filed a notice of appeal with the trial court clerk in trial court 

cause No. 2006CR5239. This court assigned appeal number 04-17-00296-CR to the May 8, 

2017 notice of appeal. On May 25, 2017, appellant filed a second notice of appeal with the trial 

court clerk in trial court cause No.2006CR5239. This court inadvertently assigned a second 

appeal number, 04-17-00370-CR, to the May 25, 2017 notice of appeal.

It is therefore ORDERED that the clerk of this court administratively close appeal 

number 04-17-00296-CR. Appeal number 04-17-00370-CR will be retained on the docket as the 

appeal from trial court cause number 2006CR5239.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 27th day of July, 2017.
___________________________________

Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 22178, May 14, 2018.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 61310, Nov. 29, 2018

3. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 85 FR 65504, Oct. 15, 2020.

4. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 87 FR 44266, July 26, 2022.

#### § 2.12 Secretary and general officers not precluded from exercising delegated powers.

No delegation of authority by the Secretary or a general officer contained in this part shall preclude the Secretary or general officer from exercising any of the authority so delegated.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway, J ustices 

# Order

November 4, 2009

134640-1 & (70)

VICKI L. ZUNICH, Indi vidually, as Next Friend for CHARLES ZUNICH, a Minor, as Next Friend for MATTHEW ZUNICH, a Minor, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of STEVEN J. ZUNICH, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v SC: 134640 COA: 265027 Midland CC: 03-005843-NH FAMILY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES OF MIDLAND, P.C., JERRY L. FERRELL, M.D., and ROBERTA L. CORBAT, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

VICKI L. ZUNICH, Indi vidually, as Next Friend for CHARLES ZUNICH, a Minor, as Next Friend for MATTHEW ZUNICH, a Minor, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of STEVEN J. ZUNICH, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v SC: 134641 COA: 265028 Midland CC: 02-005382-NHMIDMICHIGAN MEDICAL CENTERMIDLAND, JEFFREY S. NEWMAN, M.D., FAMILY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES OF MIDLAND, P.C., a/k/a FAMILY PRACTICE ASSOCIATES OF MIDLAND, P.C., KENNETH M. MACKINNON, M.D., JAMES H. FRYE, M.D., MIDMICHIGAN HEALTH, and FAITH D. FUENTES, M.D., Defendants-Appellees.I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 4, 2009

l1028 2

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion fo r miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the May 15, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1 ), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeal s and the orders of the Midland Circuit Court granting the defendants’ motions for summary disposition, and we REMAND this case to the Midland Circuit Court for reconsideration in light of Bush v Shabahang , 484 Mich 156 (2009), and Potter v McLeary , 484 Mich 397 (2009).
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

FREDERICK JAMES SCHMIDT,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv4508/LAC/EMT

DIRECTOR ESMOND, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

O R D E R

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

Report and Recommendation dated May 22, 2020 (ECF No. 8). Efforts have been

made to furnish Plaintiff a copy of the Report and Recommendation and to afford

him an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code,

Section 636(b)(1). All mail has been returned as undeliverable and could not be

forwarded. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined it

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

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

and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 3:20-cv-04508-LC-EMT Document 11 Filed 06/18/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to

comply with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of June, 2020.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 3:20cv4508/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-04508-LC-EMT Document 11 Filed 06/18/20 Page 2 of 2
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1775 

To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue 

an order with respect to secondary cockpit barriers, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2013 

Mr. FITZPATRICK (for himself, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Mr. MARINO, Mr. BRADY of 

Pennsylvania, Mr. GRIMM, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. BARLETTA, Mr. 

FATTAH, and Mr. CARTWRIGHT) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue an order with respect to secondary cockpit barriers, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Saracini Aviation Safe5 ty Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SECONDARY COCKPIT BARRIERS. 

7 Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 

8 of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Ad9 ministration shall issue an order that— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1775 IH

1 (1) requires, on each commercial aircraft oper2 ating under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal 

3 Regulations, the installation of a barrier, other than 

4 the cockpit door, that prevents access to the flight 

5 deck of an aircraft; and 

6 (2) requires, for an aircraft— 

7 (A) that is equipped with a cockpit door, 

8 that the barrier required under paragraph (1) 

9 remain locked while— 

10 (i) the aircraft is in flight; and 

11 (ii) the cockpit door separating the 

12 flight deck and the passenger area is open; 

13 and 

14 (B) that is not equipped with a cockpit 

15 door, that the barrier required under paragraph 

16 (1) remain locked as determined appropriate by 

17 the pilot in command. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Hummingbird

Springs Wilderness

Big Horn

Mountains

Wilderness

Harquahala

Mountains

Wilderness

Hells Canyon

Wilderness

Hassayampa

River Canyon

Wilderness

Castle Creek

Wilderness

Mohave County

Yavapai County

Yavapai

Marico

County

pa County

La Paz County

Maricopa County

!"a$

!"c$

!"c$

!"a$ White Tank

Mountains

Regional Park

Lake

Pleasant

Regional

Park

Prescott

Prescott

Valley

Cordes

Junction

Yarnell

BLACK

CANYON

CITY

NEW

RIVER

WICKENBURG

PEORIA

SURPRISE

BUCKEYE

GOODYEAR

PHOENIX

GLENDALE

Bureau of Land Management

Phoenix District Office

Phoenix, AZ

October 2006

Note: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

conducts land use planning only in the areas administered

by BLM. BLM has no planning authority under the

municipal or county planning legislation of the State

of Arizona.

No warranty is made by BLM for the use of this map

for purposes not intended by BLM, or to the accuracy,

reliability or completeness of the information shown.

Spatial information may not meet National Map Accuracy

standards. This information may be updated without

notification.

± Note: Land Status legend located on Map 1-1

?¿

?Â

Aã

?3⁄4

Iz

I}

Iv

Iv

Iz

Map 2-44

Bradshaw-Harquahala

Planning Areas

Closed to Leasable Minerals

Alternative C

0 5 10 15

Miles

BLM Wilderness

USFS Wilderness

Interstate

Major Road

Major River, Streams or Wash

Highway

Agua Fria National

Monument Planning Area

Bradshaw Harquahala

Planning Area

Management Unit

Closed to Leasable Minerals