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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

RAYMOND THOMAS LATSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:03-cv-00148-SPM-AK

JANICE SPANN,

et al,

Defendants.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for the Court to Order Access

to Legal Services. (Doc. 57). Plaintiff asks the Court to order the Florida Department of

Corrections to allow him access to the law library so he can respond to interrogatories

served upon him by the Defendants. Although the Court does not have a copy of the

interrogatories served upon Plaintiff, he should not have to do legal research to answer

them. Further, the Court cannot order the DOC to do anything since it is not a named

defendant in this cause. Plaintiff should address his concerns about visiting the law

library in a grievance. Thus, insofar as Plaintiff requests that the Court order DOC to let

him go to the law library, the motion is DENIED. However, the Court will grant Plaintiff

twenty (20) additional days to respond to the interrogatories since he indicates some

difficulty in responding to this discovery.

DONE AND ORDERED at Gainesville, Florida, this 10th day of May, 2005.

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-00148-SPM-AK Document 58 Filed 05/10/05 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

GREGORY SCOTT GOODYEAR,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20cv43-TKW-MJF 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION,

Defendant.

/

OR D E R

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

Recommendation (Doc. 5). No objections were filed. Having reviewed the Report 

and Recommendation and the case file, I agree with the magistrate judge that this

case is due to be dismissed based on Petitioner’s failure to pay the filing fee and 

failure to comply with court orders. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that:

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

Court and incorporated into this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice, and the Clerk shall close the 

file.

Case 5:20-cv-00043-TKW-MJF Document 6 Filed 07/06/20 Page 1 of 2
2

DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of July, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00043-TKW-MJF Document 6 Filed 07/06/20 Page 2 of 2
#### Gulf & Western Corporation, Respondent, v Harlequin Enter*740prises Limited, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 15, 1980, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff summary judgment as to liability, modified, on the law, to the extent of reversing the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff, thereby denying summary judgment relief, and as so modified, affirmed, without costs. In this action for damages allegedly suffered by plaintiff due to defendant’s alleged breach of a book distribution contract, it is clear that material issues of fact are presented precluding the grant of summary judgment relief to either party. Plaintiff acted as exclusive distributor of defendant’s (a Canadian corporate publisher of paperback books) books in the United States pursuant to an agreement which by its terms expired on December 31, 1979. The alleged breaches set forth in the complaint are: (1) that commencing three months before the expiration date, defendant prevented plaintiff from selling defendant’s books, thereby frustrating plaintiff in earning commissions, and (2) that defendant "repudiated its obligation to pay commissions earned by plaintiff through work done and for orders obtained through December 31, 1979 to the extent the resulting orders are shipped after that date.” In response, defendant asserts it did not breach the contract. Although defendant concedes that it was under a contractual duty "to use its best efforts” in assisting plaintiff to market defendant’s books until December 31, 1979, defendant interpreted the contract’s provisions so as to permit it before the expiration date to stop supplying plaintiff with new titles because plaintiff was going to go into competition with defendant. Since defendant can point to no contractual provision that unequivocally gives it the right to do this, and as the provisions it does rely on in the context of the entire agreement are susceptible of different interpretations (i.e., contain a latent ambiguity), a material issue of fact is presented as to whether, it can be reasonably implied under the agreement that defendant had the right to so protect itself. Similarly, an issue of fact is raised as to whether the contract requires defendant to pay plaintiff commissions on orders obtained before the agreement expired, but which were shipped after expiration of the agreement. Finally, apart from the aforesaid, the instant matter presents a situation where the liability and damage issues are inextricably intertwined. On this record it is clear that the damage issue is not presently susceptible to summary judgment relief and, in consequence, summary judgment must also be denied as to liability. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sullivan, Lupiano and Carro, JJ.
#### § 235.12 Information collection/recordkeeping—OMB assigned control numbers.

| 7 CFR Section where requirements are described | Current OMB control No. |
| --- | --- |
| 235.3(b) | 0584-0067. |
| 235.4 | 0584-0067. |
| 235.5(b), (d) | 0584-0067. |
| 235.7(a), (b) | 0584-0067. |
| 235.9(c), (d) | 0584-0067. |
| 235.11 | 0584-0067. |
| 210.7 | 0584-0067. |

[[80 FR 11096](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/80-FR-11096), Mar. 2, 2015]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 18, 2022

No. 04-22-00004-CV

RATTLESNAKE RIDGE VENTURES, LLC,

Appellant

v.

Alicia ORTIZ, Individually and as Next Friend of M.D.M. and A.D.M.,

Appellee

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-21-372

Honorable Baldemar Garza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

The panel has considered Appellee’s motion for rehearing; the motion is denied. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 49.3.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 18th day of August, 2022.

________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
#### Joseph A. Migdalski, Appellant, v Arcadian Lounge, Inc., Respondent.

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff *961appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered June 22, 1979, which is in favor of defendant upon the trial court’s direction of a verdict for the defendant at the close of the evidence, at a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Plaintiff’s testimony was sufficient to create an issue of fact as to whether defendant had had reasonable cause to anticipate the assaultive acts. This issue, as well as the credibility of the plaintiff, was for the jury to decide. Whether plaintiff had sought to suborn perjured testimony (which plaintiff denied) related to the credibility of plaintiff, and did not constitute a reason for directing a verdict for the defendant "in the interests of justice”. Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Lazer and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6530

ROBERT DALE STRICKLER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
HAROLD CLARK E , Director Department of Corrections; LARRY EDMONDS, Warden Lunenburg Correctional Center; NURSE CLEMENT, Medical Administrator Lunenburg Correctional Center; NURSE LAWRENCE, Pharmacy nurse, LPN; NURSE LOWRANCE, Head Nurse, LCC LPN; NURSE ABERNATHY, LPN; NURSE THAXTON, LPN; NURSE EDMONDS, LPN; NURSE JACKSON, LPN Doctor ’ s Assistant; NURSE VAUGHN, LPN; NURSE ALEXANDER, LPN; NURSE IQBAL, current chief medical officer LCC; DR. NWAOKOCHA, Chief of medical at LCC prior to Feb. 2019; T. WEBB, Food Service Administrator LCC; MS. GREG, Statewide dietitian , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the Un ited States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge. ( 2:19

- cv - 00637

- RAJ

- LRL )

Submitted : August 19, 2021 Decided: August 24, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD , and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Robert Dale Strickler, Appellant Pro Se

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Dale Strickler, a former Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying class certification, denying a preliminary injunction, dismissing as moot Strickler’s motions to expedite review and amend the complaint, and ordering Strickler to file an amended complaint in his 42 U.S.C. § 1 983 action . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). With the exception of the denial of Strickler’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the order Strickler seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. * Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. To the extent Strickler’s notice of appeal can be construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) petition for permission to appeal the denial of the class certification, permission is denied. We dispens e with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

* The denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction is immediately appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). However, Strickler requested immediate release from custody in light of the COVID

- 19 pandemic, and the record indicates he has since bee n released from custody. Accordingly, we dismiss as moot this portion of his appeal. See Rendelman v. Rouse , 569 F.3d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A]s a general rule, a prisoner’s transfer or release from a particular prison moots his claims for injunctiv e

. . . relief with respect to his incarceration there.”).
#### ADAMS Respondent, v. ADAMS et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 12, 1906.)

Action by William Adams against Benjamin Adams and others.

No opinion. Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**AFFINITY GROUP HOLDING, INC.**

**STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

I,Michael A. Schneider, President and Chief Executive Officer of Affinity GroupHolding, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify asfollows:

1.                                       This statement is provided pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 in connection with the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 (the “Periodic Report”);

2.                                       The Periodic Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

3.                                       The information contained in the PeriodicReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company as of dates and for the periods indicatedtherein.

 

Date:  August 13, 2007
|   |                                  |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | /s/ Michael A. Schneider              |   |
|   | Michael A. Schneider                  |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                  |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or suchother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thewritten statement as required by Section 906, has been provided to AffinityGroup Holding, Inc. and will be retained by Affinity Group Holding, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Case Nos.: 3:96cr74/RV 

3:12cv271/RV/EMT

DARRELL GREEN

____________________________/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated June 13, 2012 (doc. 693). 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 timely filed 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.

2. Defendant’s motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 690), is

SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of July, 2012.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 700 Filed 07/03/12 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     We have issued our report dated May 8, 2000, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements included in the Annual Report of Kent Electronics
Corporation and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended April 1, 2000. We
do hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the
Registration Statements of Kent Electronics Corporation on Form S-8, File Nos.
33-12028, 33-17821, 33-18527, 33-66030, 333-20367, 333-86279 and 333-86281.



GRANT THORNTON LLP


Houston, Texas
June 27, 2000
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 Midnight Candle Company (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Helen C. Cary, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Patrick Deparini,
acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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/ Helen C. Cary


Helen C. Cary


Chief Executive Officer


November 16, 2009





/s/Patrick Deparini


Patrick Deparini


Chief Financial Officer


November 16, 2009
118 STAT. 1124 PUBLIC LAW 108–303—SEPT. 8, 2004

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5005:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

Sept. 7, considered and passed House and Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–303

108th Congress

An Act

Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September

30, 2004, for additional disaster assistance.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the

following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury

not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September

30, 2004, to provide emergency supplemental appropriations for

additional disaster assistance, namely:

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY EMERGENCY

PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

DISASTER RELIEF

For an additional amount for ‘‘Disaster Relief’’, $2,000,000,000,

to remain available until expended, of which up to $30,000,000

may be transferred to ‘‘Small Business Administration--Salaries

and Expenses’’, for administrative expenses to carry out the disaster

loans program authorized by section 7(b) of the Small Business

Act: Provided, That the amounts provided herein are designated

as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of S. Con.

Res. 95 (108th Congress), as made applicable to the House of

Representatives by H.Res. 649 (108th Congress) and applicable

to the Senate by section 14007 of Public Law 108–287.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act, 2004’’.

Approved September 8, 2004.

Emergency

Supplemental

Appropriations

for Disaster

Relief Act, 2004.

Sept. 8, 2004

[H.R. 5005]
§ 251.7 Formula adjustments. § 251.7 Formula adjustments. ( a ) *Commodity adjustments.* The Department will make annual adjustments to the commodity allocation for each State, based on updated unemployment statistics. These adjusted allocations will be effective for the entire fiscal year, subject to reallocation or transfer in accordance with this part.
( b ) *Funds adjustments.* The Department will make annual adjustments of the funds allocation for each State based on updated unemployment statistics. These adjusted allocations will be effective for the entire fiscal year unless funds are recovered, withheld, or reallocated by FNS in accordance with § 251.8(f).
[64 FR 72905, Dec. 29, 1999]
#### § 29.1012 Damage.

The effect of mold, must, rot, black rot, or other fungus or bacterial diseases which attack tobacco in its cured state. Tobacco having the odor of mold, must, or rot is considered damaged. (See Rule 21.)
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2244 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2244

To designate the attack that occurred at a recruiting station in Little 
 Rock, Arkansas, on June 1, 2009, in which Private William Long of the 
  United States Army was killed and Private Quinton Ezeagwula of the 
 United States Army was wounded, as an international terrorist attack 
     for which the two soldiers are to be awarded the Purple Heart.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 4, 2013

Mr. Griffin of Arkansas (for himself, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Cotton, and Mr. 
   Womack) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the attack that occurred at a recruiting station in Little 
 Rock, Arkansas, on June 1, 2009, in which Private William Long of the 
  United States Army was killed and Private Quinton Ezeagwula of the 
 United States Army was wounded, as an international terrorist attack 
     for which the two soldiers are to be awarded the Purple Heart.

    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 ``Honoring Ezeagwula and Long Act'' or 
the ``HEAL Act''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF LITTLE ROCK RECRUITING STATION ATTACK AS AN 
              INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST ATTACK FOR PURPOSES OF AWARDING 
              THE PURPLE HEART.

    The attack that occurred at a recruiting station in Little Rock, 
Arkansas, on June 1, 2009, in which Private William Long of the United 
States Army was killed and Private Quinton Ezeagwula of the United 
States Army was wounded, was an international terrorist attack carried 
out by an enemy of the United States, and pursuant to Army Regulations 
regarding the award of the Purple Heart (AR 600-8-22, chapter 2, 
section II, 2-8b), Privates Long and Ezeagwula are entitled to be 
awarded the Purple Heart.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 29.1168 Nondescript (N Group).

Extremely common tobacco which does not meet the minimum specifications or which exceeds the tolerance of the lowest grade of any other group except Scrap.

*Grades, Grade Names, Minimum Specifications, and Tolerances*

N1L—

Best Nondescript from the P Group

Tolerance: 50 percent waste.

N1XL—

Best Nondescript from the X Group

Tolerance: 50 percent waste.

N1K—

Best Nondescript from the B or H Groups

Tolerance: 50 percent injury or waste.

N1R—

Best, Heavy, Dark-colored Nondescript from the B Group

Tolerance: 50 percent injury or waste.

N1KV—

Best, Variegated, Medium-bodied Greenish Nondescript from the B Group

Tolerance: 50 percent waste.

N1GL—

Best, Thin, Crude Green Nondescript from the P or X Groups

Tolerance: 50 percent crude or waste.

N1GF—

Best, Fleshy, Medium-colored, Crude Green Nondescript from the B Group

Tolerance: 50 percent crude, injury or waste.

N1GR—

Best, Heavy, Dark-colored, Crude Green Nondescript from the B Group

Tolerance: 50 percent crude, injury or waste.

N1GG—

Best, Crude, Gray Green Nondescript from the B Group

Tolerance: 50 percent crude, injury or waste.

N1PO—

Oxidized Tobacco from the P Group

Tolerance: 50 percent waste.

N1XO—

Oxidized Tobacco from the X or C Groups

Tolerance: 50 percent waste.

N1BO—

Oxidized Tobacco from the B or H Groups

Tolerance: 50 percent injury or waste.

N2—

Poorest Nondescript of any Group or Color

Tolerance: Over 50 percent crude, injury or waste.

Pursuant to Rule 25, this grade also includes crude or green tobacco containing 10 percent or less of oxidized.

[54 FR 7926, Feb. 24, 1989]
[Cite as State v. Brooks , 2021-Ohio-2236.] 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNT Y

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,

- v - FRANK J. BROOKS, JR., Defendant-Appellant. CASE NO. 2021 - T-0026

Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas

Trial Court No. 2019 CR 00840

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Decided: June 30, 2021 Jud g ment: Appeal dismissed

Dennis Watkins , Trumbull County Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth F loor, 160 Hi g h Street, N.W., Warren, OH 44481 ( For Plaintiff-Appellee )

. David L. Engler , Engler Law Firm, 181 Elm Road, N.E., Warren, OH 44483 (For Defendant-Appellant )

.

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J. {¶1} On June 7, 2021, appellant, Frank J. Brooks, Jr., through couns el, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s May 5, 2021 entry sente ncing appellant to serve six years in prison consecutive to his current prison sentence in P ortage C.P. No. 19 CR 226 and pay a mandatory fine of $10,000. {¶2} A timely notice of appeal was due no later than June 4, 2021, w hich was not a holiday or weekend. The appeal is untimely by three days

.2

Case No. 2021-T-0026 {¶3} “* * * [A] party who wishes to appeal from an order that is fi nal upon its entry shall file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 3 within 30 days of that entry.” App.R. 4(A)(1). {¶4} “(1) After the expiration of the thirty day period provided by App.R. 4(A) for the filing of a notice of appeal as of right, an appeal may be taken by a defendant with leave of the court to which the appeal is taken in the followin g classes of cases: {¶5} “(a) Criminal proceedings; * * * {¶6} “(2) A motion for leave to appeal shall be filed with the court of appeals and shall set forth the reasons for the failure of the appellant to perfect an appeal as of right. * * *.” App.R. 5(A). {¶7} Appellant has neither complied with the thirty-day rule set for th in App.R. 4(A)(1) nor sought leave to appeal under App.R. 5(A). Thus, th is court is without jurisdiction to consider his appeal. Appellant has a remedy of filing an untimely criminal appeal under App.R. 5(A). {¶8} Appeal dismissed, sua sponte, as untimely.

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J., MATT LYNCH, J.,

concur.