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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

WILLIAM HERNANDEZ,

Inmate No. M27195,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv3650/MCR/EMT

MARK S. INCH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On September 2, 2020, the undersigned entered an order granting Plaintiff’s 

second motion for an extension of time to file a third amended complaint and 

allowing Plaintiff thirty days from the date of the order in which to do so (ECF No. 

54). After the thirty-day deadline passed and Plaintiff had not complied, the 

undersigned entered an order directing Plaintiff to show cause, within thirty days, 

why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or failure to 

comply with an order of the court (ECF No. 58). The undersigned advised that 

failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation, without further 

notice, that the case be dismissed. More than thirty days have passed, and Plaintiff 

has not complied (id.). 

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

Case 3:20-cv-03650-MCR-EMT Document 61 Filed 12/07/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cv3650/MCR/EMT

1. That this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute 

and failure to comply with an order of the court.

2. That the clerk of court be directed to close this case.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 7th day of December 2021.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be 

filed within fourteen days of the date of the Report and Recommendation. Any 

different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s 

internal use only and does not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of 

the objections on all other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate 

judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report and 

recommendation waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s 

order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 

3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case 3:20-cv-03650-MCR-EMT Document 61 Filed 12/07/21 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2



Section 906 Certification



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), the undersigned officer of Centennial Bank Holdings, Inc. (the
Company) hereby certifies that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: September 26, 2005



/s/ Paul W. TaylorName:

Paul W. TaylorTitle:

Chief Financial Officer




The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
###### 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.

#### § 283.10 Consent decision.

At any time before the ALJ files an initial decision, FNS and the State agency may agree to entry of a consent decision. Such decision shall be filed in the form of a decision signed by the parties with appropriate space for signature by the ALJ and shall contain an admission of at least the jurisdictional facts, consent to the issuance of the agreed decision without further procedure and such other admissions or statements as may be agreed between the parties. The ALJ shall enter such decision without further procedures, unless an error is apparent on the face of the document. Such decision shall be final and shall take effect 30 days after the date of the delivery or service of such decision and is not subject to further administrative or judicial.
Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report 
(Form 10-K) of KLLM Transport Services, Inc. of our report dat4ed 
January 29, 1996, except for Note B as to which the date is March 13, 
1996, included in the 1995 Annual Report to Shareholders of KLLM Transport 
Services, Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of KLLM Transport
Services, Inc. listed in Item 14(a)(2).  This schedule is the responsibility
of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion
based on our audits.  In our opinion, the financial statement schedule
referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial 
statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects,
the information as set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Post-effective Amendment No. 6,  form S08, No. 33-14545) 
pertaining to the KLLM  Transport Services, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase
Plan and in the related Prospectus of our report dated January 29, 1996,
except for Note B as to which the date is March 13, 1996, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements incorporated herein by
reference and our report included in the preceding paragraph with
respect to the financial statement schedule included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) of KLLM Transport Services, Inc.


          Ernst & Young LLP


Jackson, Mississippi
March 26, 1996
#### Ethel M. Mosher, Respondent, v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., Respondents. Frances D. Mosher, Appellant, v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: If any party to this action applies for a preference, it should be granted. (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to reargue motion for summary judgment.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Marsh, JJ.
#### Office of Disciplinary Counsel *v.*Brown.

[Cite as *Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 311.]

(No. 98-756

Submitted June 10, 1998

Decided September 30, 1998.)

*313
      *Jonathan E. Coughlan,*Disciplinary Counsel, and *Lori J. Brown,*Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

*Per Curiam.*

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, .Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ZAMAR SWIFT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 261 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9th day of November, 2016

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
# Costello Insurance Associates, Inc.

April 22, 2015

Mike Levin Photo a dba of Mike Levin

29141 Susquehanna Rd

Roslyn, PA 19001

RE: Confirmation of Coverage: Effective April 22, 2015 at 12:01 a.m. to May 22, 2015 at 12:01 a.m.

(Annual policy will be issued soon after receipt of completed application )

Dear Mr. Levin :

Thank you for allowing us to place your aircraft insurance. Coverage was placed with U S Specialty Insurance

Co. per the above effective date as follows:

INSURED AIRCRAFT : UAV #1

- 2015 Kong Copter X8 Custom UAV No Serial Number

UAV #2

- 2015 3D Robotics Iris + Serial #RS1427200077

AIRCRAFT HULL COVERAGE : None

– Liability Only.

LIMITS OF LIABILITY : UAV #1

- $1,000,000 combined single limit of bodily injury and

property damage per occurrence.

UAV #2

- $500,000 combined single limit of bodily injury and property

damage per occurrence

APPROVED PURPOSE : Pleas ure and Business plus Aerial Photography /Mapping for Hire

Note: No coverage for indoor operations.

APPROVED PILOTS : Any pilot approved by the Named Insured or their designee

ANNUAL PREMIUM : UAV #1

- $995.00 + UAV #2

- $500.00

Total fleet premium of $1495.00

Should you have any questions or other aviation insurance needs, please do not hesitate to call. It is a pleasure

serving you.

Best Regards,

This insurance is subject to the terms, conditions, & limitations

of the policy (ies) in current use by the insuring companies.

Pat Costello

R

P. O. BOX 28280 / 428 E. SOUTHERN AVENUE / TEMPE, AZ. 85285

- 8280

TEL: 480

- 968

- 7746 / 800

- 528

- 6483 / FAX: 480

- 967

- 3828 / insure@aviationi.com
§ 28.910 Classification of samples and issuances of classification data. ( a ) ( 1 ) The samples submitted as provided in the subpart shall be classified by employees of the Division, and classification memoranda showing the official quality determination of each sample according to the official cotton standards of the United States shall be issued by any one of the following methods at no additional charge: ( i ) Electronic means; or
( ii ) Telecommunications, with all long distance telephone line charges paid by the receiver of data.
( 2 ) When an additional copy of the classification memorandum is issued by any method listed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, there will be a charge determined as described in § 28.116. If provided as an additional method of data transfer, the minimum fee for each method issued shall also be determined as described in § 28.116.
( b ) Owners of cotton, other than producers, may receive classification data showing the official quality determination of each sample by means of telecommunications from a central database to be maintained by the Division. The fee for this service shall be determined as described in § 28.116, with all communication charges paid by the receiver of data.
( c ) Upon request of an owner of cotton for which classification memoranda have been issued under the subpart, a new memorandum shall be issued for the business convenience of such owner without the reclassification of the cotton. Such rewritten memorandum shall bear the date of its issuance and the date or inclusive dates of the original classification. The per-hour fee for a new memorandum shall be determined according to § 28.116, with a minimum per-sheet fee determined under the same provisions.
[79 FR 67319, Nov. 13, 2014]
§ 250.63 Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). ( a ) *Distribution of donated foods in CSFP.* The Department provides donated foods in CSFP to the distributing agency (*i.e.,* the State agency, in accordance with 7 CFR part 247) for further distribution in the State, in accordance with 7 CFR part 247. State agencies and recipient agencies (*i.e.,* local agencies in 7 CFR part 247) must comply with the requirements of this part in the distribution, control, and use of donated foods in CSFP, to the extent that such requirements are not inconsistent with the requirements in 7 CFR part 247.
( b ) *Types of donated foods distributed.* Donated foods distributed in CSFP include Section 4(a) foods, and donated foods provided under Section 32, Section 416, or Section 709, as available.
###### 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.

#### § 2.9 Additional delegations.

The authority granted to a general officer may be exercised in the discharge of any additional functions which the Secretary may assign.
Editorial Note on Part 1944
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1944.520 Ineligible activities. ( a ) Grant funds may not be used for: ( 1 ) Acquisition, construction, repair, or rehabilitation of structures or acquisition of land, vehicles, or equipment.
( 2 ) Replacement of or substitution for any financial support which would be available from any other source.
( 3 ) Duplication of current services in conflict with the requirements of § 1944.514(c).
( 4 ) Hiring personnel to perform construction.
( 5 ) Buying property of any kind from families receiving technical or supervisory assistance from the grantee under the terms of the TSA grant.
( 6 ) Paying for or reimbursing the grantee for any expenses or debts incurred before Rural Development executes the grant agreement.
( 7 ) Paying any debts, expenses, or costs which should be the responsibility of the individual families receiving technical and supervisory assistance.
( 8 ) Any type of political activities.
( 9 ) Other costs including contributions and donations, entertainment, fines and penalties, interest and other financial costs, legislative expenses and any excess of cost from other grant agreements.
( b ) Advice and assistance may be obtained from the National Office where ineligible costs are proposed as part of the TSA project or where a proposed cost appears ineligible.
( c ) The grantee may not charge fees or accept compensation or gratuities from TSA recipients for the grantee's assistance under this program.
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 Quarterly Report of Chardan South China Acquisition
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30,
2005 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, I Dr. Richard D. Propper, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of
the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sec. 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, as amended; and

      2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
            of the Company.


By: /s/ Dr. Richard D. Propper                          Dated: November 14, 2005
    ------------------------------------------------
        Dr. Richard D. Propper
        Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                   Exhibit 10.28

  Summary of the Registrant's Compensatory Arrangements with Executive Officers


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name and Title                                                       Base Salary
--------------                                                       -----------
<S>                                                                  <C>
George Conrades                                                          $20,000
      Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Paul Sagan                                                              $400,000
      President and CEO-Elect
Tom Leighton                                                             $20,000
      Chief Scientist
Lisa Arthur                                                             $250,000
      Chief Marketing Officer
Robert Cobuzzi                                                          $210,000
      Chief Financial Officer
Melanie Haratunian                                                      $210,000
      Vice President and General Counsel
Robert Hughes                                                           $225,000
      Executive Vice President - Global Sales and Services
Chris Schoettle                                                         $300,000
      Executive Vice President - Technology, Networks and Support
</TABLE>
#### § 29.1014 Elasticity.

The flexible, springy nature of the tobacco leaf to recover approximately its original size and shape after it has been stretched.
I am emailing to get your thoughts on a PIP for Paramedic Selover, as requested in my 

below email. 

I look forward to your response today. 

Thanks, 

John Dosh 

Interim Public Safety Director 

From: John Dosh 

Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 10:57 AM 

To: Rayme M. Edler <RMEDLER@myescambia.com> 

Cc: Janice P. Gilley (JanicePGmev@myescambia.com) <J2u1kePGWev@myescambla.com> 

Subject: FW: Paramedic Selover 

Good Morning Dr. Edler, 

I hope all is well. 

On June 24th you provided an email response to a request from former Interim County 

Administrator Matt Coughlin providing him your thoughts on an improvement plan for 

Paramedic Se lover's past poor performances. Your suggestion was "that you felt it 

prudent that for a period of evaluation at the basic level (EMT) is a good starting point 

for assessment and review". 

Based on a recently received email from the County Attorney's Office on this subject, 

your suggested direction of demotion/discipline for Paramedic Selover is not supported 

under statute nor can it be supported by the County Human Resources Department due 

to the failure to implement any of the county's progressive disciplinary policies. As I 

understand it, reclassifying Paramedic Selover as an EMT would qualify as a demotion 

and due process has to be provided by following the counties progressive disciplinary 

process. Any future employee poor performance issues will require that you work with 

the EMS administration to implement the progressive disciplinary policies. 

With all this information at hand, I would like for you to provide me with a your thought 

on a revised process improvement plan {PIP) that with help return Paramedic Selover 

back to the streets operating as a functioning paramedic as soon as possible. 

I look forward to you thoughts by close of business Tuesday July 17, 2019. 

Best regards, 

John Dosh 

Interim Public Safety Director 

2 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 20-3 Filed 04/23/20 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

MORGAN ALLEN ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-77-TKW/MJF

S. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendant.

/

O R D E R

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 19). No objections were filed. Upon due consideration of 

the Report and Recommendation and the case file, the Court agrees with the 

magistrate judge that this case should be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to 

comply with court orders and failure to prosecute. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that:

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

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED, and the Clerk shall close the case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of February, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00077-TKW-MJF Document 20 Filed 02/08/21 Page 1 of 1
###### 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.

#### § 283.2 Scope and applicability.

The rules of practice in this part, shall be applicable to appeals by State agencies of Food and Nutrition Service quality control (QC) claims for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 1986 and subsequent fiscal years pursuant to sections 14(a) and 16(c) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2023(a) and 2025(c).
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 14-1510

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v. Samuel Anguiano Gonzales, also known as Larry Sosa lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________ Submitted: September 4, 2014 Filed: October 27, 2014 [Unpublished]

____________ Before BYE, SMITH, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Samuel Gonzales directly appeals the statutory-ma ximum sentences that the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to child-pornography offenses. His counsel

1 The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.has moved to withdraw, and has file d a brief under Ande rs v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging Gonzales’s sentence and arguing that (1) the Guidelines calculations were incorrect, (2 ) the sentence is substantively unreasonable, and (3) the application of the Guidelines violated Gonzales’s constitutional rights. For the reasons that follow, each of these arguments fails. First, we conclude that Gonzales may not challenge the Guidelines calculations because he specifically agreedin his plea agreement to the application of all but one of the enhancements, and at sentencing hewithdrew his objection to the remaining enhancement. SeeUnited States v. Thompson , 289 F.3d 524, 526-27 (8th Cir. 2002) (where defense counsel withdrew objections to presentence report, defendant was precluded from arguing those objections on appeal); United States v. Nguyen , 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) (defendant who e xplicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to specific sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal). Second, we conclude that the within-Guidelines-r ange sentence was not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster , 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Third, construing counsel’s cons titutional argument as an Eighth Amendment challenge to the length of the sentence, we reject that challenge as meritless, see Harmelin v. Michigan , 501 U.S. 957, 994-96 (1991); and fi nally, having reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingl y, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied until he advises Gonzales how to seek further relief through a petition for rehearing or filing a writ of certiorari.

______________________________

-2-
###### 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.

#### § 1951.50 OMB control number.

The collection of information requirements in Subpart A of part 1951 have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned OMB control number 0575-0075.

[52 FR 26137, July 13, 1987]
EXHIBIT 32




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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MWI Veterinary Supply, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, James F. Cleary, Jr. and Mary Patricia B. Thompson, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:









(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange

Act of 1934; and(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition

and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.







February 3, 2011









/s/ James F. Cleary, Jr.James F. Cleary, Jr.Chief Executive Officer/s/ Mary Patricia B. ThompsonMary Patricia B. ThompsonChief Financial Officer