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

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JUANITA MINTON-CRUMITY

and

ROBERT L. ALEXANDER, SR.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 4:20cv69-MW/MJF

NANCY LOU TYSON

and

MICHELLE HODGES,

Defendants.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

and Recommendation. ECF No. 9. Upon consideration, no objection having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “This action is DISMISSED

Case 4:20-cv-00069-MW-MJF Document 10 Filed 07/09/20 Page 1 of 2
2

without prejudice. The pending motion, ECF No. 6, is DENIED.” The Clerk shall 

also close the file.

SO ORDERED on July 9, 2020.

s/ MARK E. WALKER

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00069-MW-MJF Document 10 Filed 07/09/20 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1106

ROBERT HAYES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, Dept-A1; RONALD S.

POLOTSKY; LORIEN NURSING & REHABILITATION

CENTER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge.

(CA-03-3596-AMD)

Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 18, 2004

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Hayes, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert Hayes appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hayes v. Health

& Mental Hygiene, No. CA-03-3596-AMD (D. Md. Jan. 5, 2004). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7449

BOBBY D. MORGAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN D. BERKEBILE; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, 

District Judge. (5:09-cv-00966)

Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: April 30, 2012

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby D. Morgan, Appellant Pro Se. R. Booth Goodwin, II, United 

States Attorney, J. Christopher Krivonyak, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bobby D. Morgan, a District of Columbia Code offender, 

seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011) petition. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Morgan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

IN RE: THE PROGRESSIVE

INSURANCE CORPORATION

UNDERWRITING AND RATING

PRACTICES LITIGATION

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-01519-MP-AK

O R D E R 

On Thursday, March 30, 2006, the court, at the request of the parties, conducted a prefairness hearing on the proposed amended settlement agreement submitted by the parties, Doc.

193. The plaintiffs, defendants, and objectors were all given an opportunity to discuss the

proposal. In light of the arguments made by the parties, the court concludes that a sufficient

basis exists for this matter to move forward with the settlement proceedings. Thus, a time should

be set to provide all parties the opportunity to make a full and complete presentation as to the

merits, or lack thereof, of the proposed amended settlement agreement.

Accordingly, following the requisite submissions by the parties, an order of preliminary

approval will be entered and a hearing date will be set for when the parties, and any objectors,

may be fully heard on the issue of the proposed amended settlement. If the parties or objectors

believe that one full court day is insufficient time for all parties to be heard, they should contact

the court's Deputy Clerk or law clerk.

Additionally, as stated in open court, the Motion to Amend Case Management Order,

Doc. 205, is denied without oral argument. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of March, 2006

Case 1:03-cv-01519-MP-AK Document 210 Filed 03/30/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:03-cv-01519-MP-AK

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:03-cv-01519-MP-AK Document 210 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2150 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2150

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a five-year 
       extension to the homeless veterans reintegration programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2013

Mr. Cook (for himself, Mr. Flores, Mr. Denham, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Hunter, 
   Mr. Williams, Mrs. Negrete McLeod, and Mr. Takano) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a five-year 
       extension to the homeless veterans reintegration programs.

    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 ``Homeless Veterans' Reintegration 
Programs Reauthorization Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF HOMELESS VETERANS REINTEGRATION 
              PROGRAMS.

    Section 2021(e)(F) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``2013'' and inserting ``2018''.
                                 <all>
```
IN IT I AL REVI E W E NG I NEER I NG REPORT PMN : 14

- 0 8 0 4

Post

- Focu s Draf t Revision 1 11 /5/20 14Consumer U se : Yes
SA T (concerns) (09/03/20 1 4 ) :
Re l ated Ana l ogs : Migra t
PB T ra ti ng : P 3 B 1T l H

ea l t h : 1

- 2 Drink i ng Water, I nhalation

E co : 3 Wa t er (A l l re l ea s es to water w i th a CC 

### = 4 ppb)

, XB T esting ( T e s t ing des i red)OCC U PAT I ONAL EXPOSURE RAT I NG : 0

- 1

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPT I ONS :IN IT I AL REVI E W E NG I NEER I NG REPORTIN IT I AL REVI E W E NG I NEER I NG REPORTIN IT I AL REVI E W E NG I NEER I NG REPORT
EXHIBIT 21



                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



     Certain of Phosphate Resource Partners Limited Partnership's
 subsidiaries  are  listed  below.  These  subsidiaries  are  all
 included  in  the  Company's consolidated financial  statements,
 and  collectively,  together  with Phosphate  Resource  Partners
 Limited  Partnership,  account  for  more  than  90  percent  of
 consolidated  net  sales, earnings (loss) before  income  taxes,
 extraordinary  items  and  cumulative  effect  of  a  change  in
 accounting principal, and total assets.

 <TABLE>
 <CAPTION>

                                         State of        Name Under Which
                                       Organization      It Does Business
                                       ------------      ----------------
<S>                                      <C>                   <C>
Agrico Chemical Company                  Delaware              Same
IMC-Agrico Company                       Delaware              Same
IMC-Agrico MP, Inc.                      Delaware              Same

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

Editorial Note on Part 275
Editorial Note: OMB control numbers relating to this part 275 are contained in § 271.8.

§ 275.17 State corrective action plan. ( a ) State agencies shall prepare corrective action plans addressing those deficiencies specified in § 275.16(b) requiring action by the State agency or the combined efforts of the State agency and the project area(s)/management unit(s). This corrective action plan is an open-ended plan and shall remain in effect until all deficiencies in program operations have been reduced substantially or eliminated. State agencies shall provide updates to their corrective action plans through regular, semiannual updates. These semiannual updates shall be received by FNS by May 1st and November 1st respectively. Such updates must contain: ( 1 ) Any additional deficiencies identified since the previous corrective action plan update;
( 2 ) Documentation that a deficiency has been corrected and is therefore being removed from the plan; and
( 3 ) Any changes to planned corrective actions for previously reported deficiencies.
( b ) *Content.* State corrective action plans shall contain, but not necessarily be limited to, the following, based on the most recent information available: ( 1 ) Specific description and identification of each deficiency;
( 2 ) Source(s) through which the deficiency was detected;
( 3 ) Magnitude of each deficiency, if appropriate, as defined in § 275.15(c)(3) of this part;
( 4 ) Geographic extent of the deficiency (e.g., Statewide/project area or management unit—specific project areas in which the deficiency occurs);
( 5 ) Identification of causal factor(s) contributing to the occurrence of each deficiency;
( 6 ) Identification of any action already completed to eliminate the deficiency;
( 7 ) For each deficiency, an outline of actions to be taken, the expected outcome of each action, the target date for each action, and the date by which each deficiency will have been eliminated; and
( 8 ) For each deficiency, a description of the manner in which the State agency will monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective action in eliminating the deficiency.
( c ) FNS will provide technical assistance in developing corrective action plans when requested by State agencies.
( d ) State agencies will be held accountable for the efficient and effective operation of all areas of the program. FNS is not precluded from issuing a warning as specified in part 276 because a deficiency is included in the State agency's corrective action plan.
[Amdt. 160, 45 FR 15909, Mar. 11, 1980, as amended by Amdt. 266, 52 FR 3409, Feb. 4, 1987]
OSWER/OSRTI 

State, Tribal, and Site Identification Branch 

Washington, DC 20460 

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST (NPL)

***Proposed Site*** March 2010 

VIENNA WELLS Vienna, Missouri 

Maries County 

 Site Location: 

The Vienna Wells site is located in Maries County, Vienna, Missouri. The site is located on a low ridge that lies 

between the Gasconade and Maries River Valley. 

 Site History: 

The Vienna Wells site includes three contaminated public drinking water wells and the suspected source area, the 

former Langenberg Hat Factory facility. The Langenberg Hat Factory facility operated from 1952 until 1996. In 2007, 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Public Drinking Water Branch (PDWB) requested an 

investigation to determine the source of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in the Vienna Wells public drinking water supply. 

Based on the investigation, MDNR determined the Langenberg Hat Factory facility was a suspected source of the PCE 

contamination. 

 Site Contamination/Contaminants: 

PCE has been detected in Well #1 and Well #3 over a ten-year period. Site Inspection sampling in 2007 and 2008 

confirmed the presence of PCE in the public drinking water wells and in the distribution system, indicating there is 

actual exposure to PCE. The most recent sampling results for Well #3 indicate concentrations exceeding the Safe 

Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for PCE in November 2008, February 2009, May 2009, and 

August 2009. 

 Potential Impacts on Surrounding Community/Environment: 

The City of Vienna public drinking water Well #3 is the primary water source for approximately 628 residents, Well 

#1 is currently operating as an emergency standby and supplemental water supply well and Well #2 was taken out of 

service in 2007 due to aesthetic reasons. The PDWB monitoring documents that levels of PCE have been increasing 

in Vienna Well #3 since 1997 and now exceed the MCL. 

 Response Activities (to date): 

The City of Vienna has secured funding for an air stripper project. 

 Need for NPL Listing: 

The State of Missouri referred the site to EPA. Other federal and state cleanup programs were evaluated, but were not 

viable at this time. EPA received a letter of support for placing this site on the NPL from the Governor. 

[The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was evaluated with the HRS. The description may change 

as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination.] 

For more information about the hazardous substances identified in this narrative summary, including general information regarding the effects of exposure to these 

substances on human health, please see the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs. ATSDR ToxFAQs can be found on the Internet 

at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html or by telephone at 1-888-42-ATSDR or 1-888-422-8737.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 185 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.185

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and thirteen

                                 An Act

 
  To designate the United States courthouse located at 101 East Pecan 
      Street in Sherman, Texas, as the ``Paul Brown United States 
                              Courthouse''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.
    The United States courthouse located at 101 East Pecan Street in 
Sherman, Texas, shall be known and designated as the ``Paul Brown 
United States Courthouse''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Paul Brown 
United States Courthouse''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### § 1730.64 Power purchase agreements.

Nothing in this subpart requires the borrower to enter into purchase power arrangements with the owner of the Distributed Resources.
#### § 29.1225 Key to standard grademarks.

## Groups

B—Leaf. H—Smoking Leaf. C—Cutters. X—Lugs. P—Primings. M—Mixed Group. N—Nondescript. S—Scrap.

## Qualities

1—Choice. 2—Fine. 3—Good. 4—Fair. 5—Low. 6—Poor.

## Color Symbols

L—Lemon. LL—Whitish-lemon. F—Orange. FR—Orange red. R—Red. K—Variegated. KR—Variegated red or scorched. G—Green. V—Greenish. GR—Green red. GK—Green variegated. GG—Gray green. KL—Variegated lemon. KF—Variegated orange. KV—Variegated greenish. KM—Variegated mixed. KD—Variegated dark red. LL—Whitish-lemon.

## Combination Symbols

XL—Lug side. PO—Oxidized primings, XO—Oxidized lugs or cutters. BO—Oxidized leaf or smoking leaf. GL—Thin-bodied nondescript. GF—Medium-bodied nondescript. LP—Lemon (primings side). FP—Orange (primings side). KK—Excessively scorched.

## Special Symbol

S—Slick.

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977, as amended at 48 FR 29672, June 28, 1983; 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984; 51 FR 25028, July 10, 1986; 52 FR 28534, July 31, 1987]
§ 25.100 Eligibility requirements. A nominated rural area may be eligible for designation pursuant to this part only if the area: ( a ) Has a maximum population of 30,000;
( b ) Is one of pervasive poverty, unemployment, and general distress, as described in § 25.102;
( c ) Meets the area size and boundary requirements of § 25.103;
( d ) Is located entirely within the jurisdiction of the general local government making the nomination; and
( e ) Meets the poverty rate criteria contained in § 25.104.
( f ) Provision for Alaska and Hawaii. A nominated area in Alaska or Hawaii shall be presumed to meet the criteria of paragraphs (b), (c), and (e) of this section if, for each Census tract or block group in the area, at least 20 percent of the families in such tract have an income which is 50 percent or less of the statewide median family income.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Victoria Becton, Respondent, v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Appellant.

Order entered July 20, 1966, herein appealed from, which directed MVAIC to accept a notice of claim, unanimously modified, on the law, to remand this matter for a preliminary hearing on the issues (a) whether the automobile involved in the accident, the A & J Rental car, was or was not an insured vehicle at the time of the accident *(Matter of Stanley [MVAIC],*20 A D 2d 877) and (b) whether the notice of claim was timely filed. As so modified the order is otherwise affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to abide the event. Concur—Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Tilzer and Rabin, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

###### Editorial Note on Part 277

#### Editorial Note:

OMB control numbers relating to this part 277 are contained in § 271.8.

#### § 277.3 Budgets and budget revision procedures.

The preparation, content, submittal, and revision requirements for the State SNAP Budget shall be as specified in § 272.2. The application for funds and budget requirements for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations shall be as specified in § 283.9. State agencies must submit a budget to FNS as part of the State Plan each fiscal year. Upon approval of the budget by FNS, administrative funds will be provided.
#### § 27.1 Meaning of words.

Words used in this subpart in the singular form shall be deemed to import the plural and vice versa, as the case may demand.
§ 205.207 Wild-crop harvesting practice standard. ( a ) A wild crop that is intended to be sold, labeled, or represented as organic must be harvested from a designated area that has had no prohibited substance, as set forth in § 205.105, applied to it for a period of 3 years immediately preceding the harvest of the wild crop.
( b ) A wild crop must be harvested in a manner that ensures that such harvesting or gathering will not be destructive to the environment and will sustain the growth and production of the wild crop.
#### § 1822.277 Complaints regarding discrimination in opportunity to buy developed sites.

Any applicant wishing to purchase a site financed by an RHS loan who believes he or she has been discriminated against because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, handicap, or age, may file a complaint with the County Supervisor or State Director. Any such complaint will be handled in accordance with 7 CFR 3560.2.

[56 FR 67472, Dec. 31, 1991, as amended at 69 FR 69104, Nov. 26, 2004]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7632

GENE W. GAYLOR,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-97-478-R)

Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 25, 1998

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gene W. Gaylor, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

for lack of jurisdiction his petition for a writ of error coram

nobis filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (1994), and his successive

habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See Gaylor v. Virginia, No. CA-97-478-R

(W.D. Va. Oct. 17, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

WENDY KERNECHEL,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-78-WS/MJF

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA &

JIMMY HIGHSMITH,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the United States’ third unopposed motion 

to stay (Doc. 30). For the reasons set forth in that motion, this court will grant the 

motion. All litigation deadlines, other than those imposed by an order issued by this 

court, are suspended. This includes the United States’ obligation to answer 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint. Any party may move to lift or alter the stay at any 

point.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The United States’ second motion to stay (Doc. 30) is GRANTED. This 

action is STAYED until November 1, 2021, unless otherwise ordered by this court.

SO ORDERED this 3rd day of May, 2021.

Case 4:20-cv-00078-WS-MJF Document 31 Filed 05/03/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

/s/ Michael J. Frank

Michael J. Frank

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00078-WS-MJF Document 31 Filed 05/03/21 Page 2 of 2