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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

IN RE: 3M ADMINISTRATIVE 

DOCKET

This Document Relates To:

Admin Docket No. 7:20-cv-46474

Case No. 3:19-mc-87 

JUDGE M. CASEY RODGERS 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R. JONES 

REQUEST FOR TRANSITION TO 3M MDL DOCKET 

I. PLAINTIFF INFORMATION

MDL Centrality Plaintiff ID:

Name: 

First M.I. Last

Has the plaintiff fulfilled his or her initial census obligations? 

Yes/No

Has the plaintiff’s case been selected for a bellwether pool? 

Yes/No

II. EFFECT OF REQUEST FOR TRANSITION

Submission of this form will constitute notification that the plaintiff’s administrative case is ready to transition to the 3M 

MDL docket. On receipt of the form, the Court will transfer this case from the administrative docket to the 3M MDL 

docket, 3:19md2885. Within 10 days after the case has been transferred to the 3M MDL docket, a filing fee must be 

paid, plaintiff’s counsel must seek pro hac vice admission, the Short Form Complaint must be served on Defendants, 

and the plaintiff must file a Notice of Designated Forum on his or her individual docket, identifying the federal district 

in which he or she could have filed his or her case in the absence of direct filing on the administrative docket. 

Dated: ____________________ Respectfully submitted, 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Stephen Blackburn

79080

Stephen Blackburn

Yes

No

Mar 20 2020

Jason W. Earley

AR Bar No. 2004166; AL Bar No. 3427Q10M

Hare, Wynn, Newell, & Newton, LLP

2025 3rd Ave N Ste 800 Birmingham AL 35203

jason@hwnn.com

Phone: 205-328-5330

Case 7:20-cv-46474-MCR-GRJ Document 2 Filed 04/10/20 Page 1 of 1
628 S.E.2d 42

#### William RUSH, Petitioner v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 9, 2006.

*145ORDER

In this post-conviction relief case, petitioner has filed a notice of appeal from an order dated December 8, 2005. This order states that petitioner moved to withdraw his post-conviction relief action at the start of the proceeding, and that the post-conviction relief judge advised petitioner that any withdrawal would result in a dismissal of the action with prejudice. The order indicates that petitioner was questioned by the judge and includes a finding that petitioner’s decision to withdraw the action was being made knowingly and voluntarily. The order grants the- motion to withdraw and dismisses the action with prejudice.

A party cannot appeal an order issued with the consent of the party. *Hooper v. Rockwell,*334 S.C. 281, 513 S.E.2d 358 (1999); *American Publishing and Engraving Co. v. Gibbes*& *Co.,*59 S.C. 215, 37 S.E. 753 (1901); *Smith v. Lowery,*56 S.C. 493, 35 S.E. 129 (1900); *Varn v. Varn,*32 S.C. 77, 10 S.E. 829 (1890); *Calcutt v. Calcutt,*282 S.C. 565, 320 S.E.2d 55 (Ct.App.1984). We see no reason why this rule should not be equally applicable to appellate review in post-conviction relief cases.

In this case, petitioner moved to withdraw despite the fact that he was advised that the withdrawal would result in the dismissal of this matter with prejudice. Since it was petitioner who sought the withdrawal, he may not appeal the order that resulted when his request was granted.1 Accordingly, the notice of appeal is dismissed.

*146IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Jean H. Toal, C.J.,

/s/ James E. Moore, J.

/s/ John H. Waller, Jr., J.

/s/ Costa M. Pleicones, J.

BURNETT, J., not participating.

1

. If there was any error in the findings of fact or conclusions of law in the order, these errors should have been raised by a timely motion under either Rule 52 or 59, SCRCP.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1924 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1924

To reinstate year-round Federal Pell Grants under the Higher Education 
                              Act of 1965.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2013

  Mrs. Bustos (for herself and Mr. Loebsack) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 
                               Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reinstate year-round Federal Pell Grants under the Higher Education 
                              Act of 1965.

    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 ``Access to Education and Training 
Act''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL PELL GRANTS.

    (a) Amendments.--Section 401(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
((20 U.S.C. 1070a(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2)(A)(ii), by striking ``paragraph 
        (7)(B)'' and inserting ``paragraph (8)(B)''; and
            (2) by redesignating paragraphs (5) through (7) as 
        paragraphs (6) through (8), respectively; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
            ``(5)(A) The Secretary shall award a student not more than 
        two Federal Pell Grants during a single award year to permit 
        such student to accelerate the student's progress toward a 
        degree or certificate if the student is enrolled--
                    ``(i) on at least a half-time basis for a period of 
                more than one academic year, or more than two semesters 
                or an equivalent period of time, during a single award 
                year; and
                    ``(ii) in a program of instruction at an 
                institution of higher education for which the 
                institution awards an associate or baccalaureate degree 
                or certificate.
            ``(B) In the case of a student receiving more than one 
        Federal Pell Grant in a single award year under subparagraph 
        (A), the total amount of Federal Pell Grants awarded to such 
        student for the award year may exceed the maximum basic grant 
        level specified in the appropriate appropriations Act for such 
        award year.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall be 
effective for award year 2013-2014 and each succeeding award year
                                 <all>
```
§ 3.86 Refunds. USDA will refund promptly to the appropriate individual amounts offset under these regulations when: ( a ) A debt is waived or otherwise found not owed to the United States (unless expressly prohibited by law or regulation); or
( b ) USDA is directed by an administrative or judicial order to refund amounts deducted from the employee's current pay.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

KEVIN L. BLAKE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-137-RV/MJF 

G. GANDY, et. al., 

Defendants. 

 / 

ORDER 

 This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation dated April 15, 2021 (ECF No. 28). 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 the timely filed objections. 

 Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed 

objections thereto (ECF No. 29), I have determined that the Report and 

Recommendation should not be adopted. 

 Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is not adopted 

because it appears that the two cases against the Orange County Sheriff’s Office, 

Case Nos. 6:19cv494 and 6:19cv72, are actually the same case. Therefore, the 

Case 5:20-cv-00137-RV-MJF Document 30 Filed 04/27/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

5:20-cv-137-RV/MJF 

plaintiff did disclose all of his initiated actions in state and federal courts, and there 

was no omission to be penalized. 

2. This action is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of April, 2021. 

 s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:20-cv-00137-RV-MJF Document 30 Filed 04/27/21 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 13.1 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*  In connection with the annual report of North American Nickel Inc. (formerly Widescope Resources Inc.) (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Keith Morrison, Chief Executive Officer 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:  1. the Report containing the financial statements of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.  Date: April 20, 2015  /s/ Keith Morrison Keith Morrison Chief Executive Officer  * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Alex Nicholson et al., appellants, v. Hugh R. McGuire et al., appellees.

Gen. No. 8,810.

Opinion filed December 22, 1934.

John H. Savage and James G. Holbrook, for appellants. No appearance for appellees.

Mr. Justice Dove

delivered the opinion of the court.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2462 

To amend subsection (a) of section 7 of the Small Business Act to eliminate 

guarantee fees for loans guaranteed under that subsection where the 

total loan amount is not more than $150,000. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 20, 2013 

Ms. HAHN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Small Business 

A BILL 

To amend subsection (a) of section 7 of the Small Business 

Act to eliminate guarantee fees for loans guaranteed 

under that subsection where the total loan amount is 

not more than $150,000. 

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 ‘‘Small Business Oppor5 tunity Acceleration Act of 2013’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2462 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF GUARANTEE FEES FOR LOANS 

2 WITH TOTAL LOAN AMOUNTS NOT MORE 

3 THAN $150,000. 

4 Section 7(a)(18)(A) of the Small Business Act is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) in subparagraph (A)— 

7 (A) by striking ‘‘With respect’’ and insert8 ing ‘‘Except as otherwise provided in this para9 graph, with respect’’; and 

10 (B) by striking clause (i); 

11 (2) by striking subparagraph (B); and 

12 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(C) NO GUARANTEE FEES FOR CERTAIN

14 LOANS.—No guarantee fee shall be collected, 

15 payable, or charged under this paragraph if the 

16 total loan amount is not more than $150,000.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.4

               SCHEDULE OF OUTSIDE DIRECTORS' ANNUAL COMPENSATION
                           (EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2004)

Component

Board Retainer

     Presiding Director                 $125,000 ($31,250 per calendar quarter)

     All Other Directors                $70,000 ($17,500 per calendar quarter)


Committee Chair Retainer

     Audit Committee Chair              $15,000 ($3,750 per calendar quarter)

     Other Committee Chairs             $5,000 ($1,250 per calendar quarter)


ODEPP Stock Unit Accruals*              $70,000


Meeting Fees (Board or Committee)**

     Attended Meeting                   $1,700

     Telephonic Meeting                 $1,000


*Under the Outside Directors Equity Participation Plan (the "Plan"), on the
first business day of each calendar quarter each director will have $17,500
accrued to his or her plan account. Amounts accrued are converted into units
equivalent in value to shares of Common Stock at the fair market value on the
accrual date. Each director may also choose to have 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% of his
or her retainer and meeting fees deferred and converted into share equivalents
under the Plan.

**Meeting fees only apply for total meetings attended in excess of 24 per year.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

BRUCE CASSAMAJOR, derivatively on 

behalf of MIMEDX GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-93-AW-MAF

PARKER H. PETIT, et al.,

Defendants,

and

MIMEDX GROUP, INC.,

Nominal Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice (ECF 

No. 6). If unconditional, the notice would be effective without a court order. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272 (11th 

Cir. 2012). But the notice purports to require Defendants to bear their own costs and 

fees. Only an agreement or court order can do that. Regardless, the case is dismissed

based on Plaintiff’s failure to serve process. See ECF No. 5. The clerk will close the 

file.

SO ORDERED on May 26, 2020. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00093-AW-MAF Document 7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MICHAEL CORKER,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:19cv485–WS/EMT

BARBARA HOBBS,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 8) docketed February 7, 2020. The magistrate judge recommends that this case

be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order. Plaintiff

has filed no objections to the report and recommendation. 

Upon review of the record, this court has determined that the report and

recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 8) is adopted

and incorporated by reference in this order of the court.
Page 2 of 2

2. Plaintiff’s complaint and this action are hereby DISMISSED without

prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and to prosecute the case.

3. The clerk is directed to enter judgment, stating: "All claims are dismissed

without prejudice."

DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of February , 2020.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
|   |        |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
|--------|-------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: | May 5, 2011 | By:    | /s/    |   |   | ROBERT E. SWANSON                                    |
|   |        |   | Name:  |   |   | Robert E. Swanson                                    |
|   |        |   | Title: |   |   | Chief Executive Officer                              |
|   |        |   |   |   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                        |
|   |        |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
|   |        |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
| Dated: | May 5, 2011 | By:    | /s/    |   |   | KATHLEEN P. MCSHERRY                                 |
|   |        |   | Name:  |   |   | Kathleen P. McSherry                                 |
|   |        |   | Title: |   |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |        |   |   |   |   | (Principal Financial Officer)                        |
|   |        |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
|   |        |   |   |   |   |                                                 |

----
Board of Director's Compensation Structure



 Exhibit 10.49 
  
 Salix Pharmaceuticals 
 2005 Board of Director’s Compensation Structure 
  

													
	 	  	 John
 Chappell

	  	 Thomas
 D’Alonzo

	  	 Richard
 Franco

	  	 William
 Keane


	 Annual Fees:
	  	 	 	  	 	 	  	 	 	  	 	 
	 Annual Retainer
	  	$	75,000	  	$	20,000	  	$	20,000	  	$	20,000
	 Audit Committee Chair
	  	 	—  	  	 	—  	  	 	—  	  	 	6,000
	 Audit Committee Member
	  	 	6,000	  	 	6,000	  	 	6,000	  	 	6,000
	 Compensation Committee Chair
	  	 	—  	  	 	6,000	  	 	—  	  	 	—  
	 Nominating Committee Chair
	  	 	—  	  	 	—  	  	 	6,000	  	 	—  
	 	  	
	
	  	
	
	  	
	
	  	
	

	 Total Annual Fees
	  	$	81,000	  	$	32,000	  	$	32,000	  	$	32,000
	 	  	
	
	  	
	
	  	
	
	  	
	

	 Amount due Quarterly
	  	$	20,250	  	$	8,000	  	$	8,000	  	 	8,000
	 	  	
	
	  	
	
	  	
	
	  	
	


  
 Daily Board of Director’s
Meeting Fees: 
  
 Face-to-face meeting—$2,000 per day 
 Telephonic meeting—$1,000 per call 
 Audit committee meeting—$500
per meeting
EXHIBIT  13(C)


     HARLEYSVILLE  GROUP
     QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURE ABOUT MARKET RISK

     INTEREST  RATE  RISK

     Harleysville  Group's exposure to market risk for changes in interest rates
is  concentrated  in  its investment portfolio and, to a lesser extent, its debt
obligations.  Harleysville Group monitors this exposure through periodic reviews
of  asset  and  liability  positions.  Estimates of cash flows and the impact of
interest  rate  fluctuations  relating  to  the investment portfolio are modeled
regularly.

     Principal  cash  flows  and  related  weighted-average  interest  rates  by
expected  maturity  dates  for financial instruments sensitive to interest rates
are  as  follows:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>



                              DECEMBER 31, 2002
                      ---------------------------------
                      PRINCIPAL       WEIGHTED-AVERAGE
                      CASH FLOWS      INTEREST RATE
                      ----------      -----------------
                         (dollars in thousands)
<S>                   <C>                 <C>
Fixed maturities and short-
  term investments:
    2003              $  279,888          4.48%
    2004                 138,912          6.24%
    2005                 173,976          6.20%
    2006                 237,249          5.74%
    2007                 164,395          5.87%
    Thereafter           527,504          5.73%
                      ----------
  Total               $1,521,924
                      ==========
  Fair value          $1,631,503
                      ==========
Debt
    2003              $   75,475          6.72%
    2004                     520          1.70%
    2005                  19,065          2.04%
    2006                     560          1.70%
                      ----------
  Total               $   95,620
                      ==========
  Fair value          $   96,689
                      ==========
</TABLE>



     Actual  cash  flows  may  differ from those stated as a result of calls and
prepayments.

Page  29

<PAGE>


     HARLEYSVILLE  GROUP
     QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
     (Continued)

EQUITY  PRICE  RISK

     Harleysville  Group's  portfolio  of equity securities, which is carried on
the  balance  sheet  at  fair  value, has exposure to price risk.  Price risk is
defined  as the potential loss in fair value resulting from an adverse change in
prices.  Portfolio  characteristics  are  analyzed  regularly and market risk is
actively  managed through a variety of techniques.  The portfolio is diversified
across industries, and concentrations in any one company or industry are limited
by  parameters  established  by  senior  management.

     The  combined total of realized and unrealized equity investment losses was
$48.7  million,  $35.9  million  and  $12.2  million  in  2002,  2001  and 2000,
respectively.  During  these  three  years,  the largest total equity investment
gain  and  (loss)  in  a  quarter  was  $14.6  million  and  $(29.1)  million,
respectively.

Page  30

<PAGE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:02cr36-SPM

JASEN ALLEN BADIA,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DIRECTING GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant Jason Badia’s motion

concerning return of seized property (doc. 110). Defendant complains that the

Government has failed to return property to Defendant in accordance with its

representations to the Court (doc. 82) and the Court’s order (doc. 84). 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Government file a response to the

motion on or before May 15, 2007.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of May, 2007.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cr-00036-SPM-AK Document 111 Filed 05/01/07 Page 1 of 1
#### § 29.2524 Green (G).

A term applied to green-colored tobacco. Any leaf which has a green color affecting 20 percent or more of its surface may be described as green. (See Rule 18, § 29.2634.)
Page 1 of 2 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

MELISSA M. BARGE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 3:20cv4945-RV-HTC 

FED. NAT’L MORTG. CORP. 

and CHOICE LEGAL GRP, P.A., 

Defendants. 

 / 

O R D E R

 This case is before the Court based on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 5). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed. Having 

considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined that the Report and 

Recommendation should be adopted. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5) is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order. 

Case 3:20-cv-04945-RV-HTC Document 6 Filed 07/08/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2 

Case No. 3:20cv4945-RV-HTC

2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff’s 

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with orders of the Court. 

3. The clerk is directed to close the file. 

 DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of July, 2020. 

s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:20-cv-04945-RV-HTC Document 6 Filed 07/08/20 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 70234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28903]



[[Page 70234]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Lakefield Wind Project, LLC, EG10-57-000; Constellation Mystic Power, 
LLC, EG10-58-000; Pattern Gulf Wind, LLC, EG10-59-000; New Harvest Wind 
Project, LLC, EG10-60-000; Dry Lake Wind Power, II LLC, EG10-61-000; 
Learning Jupiter Wind Power, LLC, EG10-62-000; Hardscrabble Wind Power 
LLC, EG10-63-000; Baldwin Wind, LLC, EG10-64-000]


Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

November 8, 2010.
    Take notice that during the month of October 2010, the status of 
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became 
effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 
366.7(a).

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28903 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P