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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MATHEW SELOVER

Plaintiff, 

vs. CASE NUMBER: 3:20-CV-4698-

TKW-HTC

 

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD

OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and

RAYME EDLER, 

Defendants.

 /

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Pursuant to the Court’s June 8, 2021 and June 28, 2021 Orders (Docs. 60, 61), 

Plaintiff, MATTHEW SELOVER, and Defendants ESCAMBIA COUNTY 

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and RAYME EDLER (collectively, 

“the Parties”) provide the Court with the following status update:

1. On or about June 4, 2021, the parties attended mediation. Plaintiff and 

Escambia County Board of County Commissioners (ECBOCC) reached an 

agreement to settle Plaintiff’s claims raised against ECBOCC in this lawsuit. (Doc. 

59). 

2. Currently, Plaintiff and ECBOCC are diligently working on finalizing 

the agreement with a written settlement agreement and release.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 62 Filed 07/01/21 Page 1 of 4
2

3. Defendant Edler is not a party to the agreement reached between 

Plaintiff and ECBOCC; however, the settlement agreement reached between 

Plaintiff and ECBOCC, once finalized, will result in Plaintiff moving to dismiss all 

claims against ECBOCC and Edler, effectively ending this litigation.

4. The Parties will either file the necessary dismissal documents or 

another status report within thirty (30) days of the filing of this status report. 

Dated: July 1st, 2021

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Travis P. Lampert

Travis P. Lampert 

Fla. Bar No. 0099843

Talbott, Lampert & Stoner, P.A. 

900 E. Moreno Street

Pensacola, FL 32503

P: (850) 437-9600

F: (850) 437-0906

travis@talbottlawfirm.com

civil@talbottlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

/s/ Stephanie Pidermann 

Stephanie Pidermann 

Fla. Bar No. 60414

Lydecker Diaz

495 Grand Boulevard Suite 206

Miramar Beach, FL 

P: (305) 416-3180

/s/ Cecily L. Kaffer

Pro Hac Vice

The Kullman Firm

P.O. Box 1287

Mobile, AL 36633

P: (251) 432-1811

F: (251) 433-1230

clk@kullmanlaw.com

Attorneys for Rayme Edler

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 62 Filed 07/01/21 Page 2 of 4
3

F: (305) 416-3190

sp@lydeckerdiaz.com

Attorneys for Escambia County 

Board of County Commissioners

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 62 Filed 07/01/21 Page 3 of 4
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June __ , 2021, I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of 

Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send electronic notification to all 

counsel of record, as follows: 

Stephanie Pidermann, Esquire

Katie Gudaitis, Esquire

Lydecker Diaz

1221 Brickell Avenue, 19th Floor

Miami, FL 33131

sp@lydeckerdiaz.com

kg@lydeckerdiaz.com

ksm@lydeckerdiaz.com

Attorneys for Defendant, Escambia County Board of County Commissioners

Cecily L. Kaffer, Esquire

Pro hac vice

The Kullman Firm

P.O. Box 1287

Mobile, AL 36633

clk@kullmanlaw.com

Attorney for Defendant, Rayme Edler

/s/ Travis P. Lampert

TRAVIS P. LAMPERT, ESQ.

Attorney for Plaintiffs’

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 62 Filed 07/01/21 Page 4 of 4
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 

LISA GANDY, et al., 

Defendants. 

 / 

ORDER 

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

and Recommendation dated June 24, 2022 (ECF No. 65). 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). 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 now ORDERED as follows: 

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED 

IN PART. 

Case 5:20-cv-00137-RV-MJF Document 66 Filed 07/26/22 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

5:20-cv-137-RV/MJF 

3. Blake’s Eighth-Amendment failure-to-intervene claims against 

Defendants Lisa Gandy and Philip McClellan are DISMISSED with prejudice for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

4. Blake’s claims of assault and battery are DISMISSED with prejudice

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

5. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Blake’s remaining 

claims. 

6. This case is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for further 

proceedings. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of July 2022. 

 s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:20-cv-00137-RV-MJF Document 66 Filed 07/26/22 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Anne Farrell, Deceased. Janis Segal et al., Respondents; William Cohen, as Trustee of the Estate of Anne Farrell, Deceased, Appellant.

In proceedings (1) for a judicial *620settlement of a final account and (2) to vacate and set aside a court decree settling an intermediate account, the appeals are from two orders of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, both dated May 4, 1979, which after a hearing, *inter alia,*directed the appellant to amend (1) his intermediate account and (2) his final account. Orders affirmed, with one bill of costs to cover both appeals, payable by the appellant. In affirming, we have not considered the issue, raised by the petitioners for the first time before this court, whether the citation in the proceeding to judicially settle the intermediate account of the appellant was properly served. Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 3, 2015

s0223

Order 

Clerk

March 3, 2015

148357

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148357

COA: 316462

Berrien CC: 2006-411044-FC

KORY MICHAEL MISIEWICZ, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 30, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:88-cr-01007-MP-AK

WILLIE BUD REED, JR,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1303, Motion for Reconsideration regarding the

Order on Motion to Reduce Sentence, Doc. 1247, and the Order on Motion for Reconsideration

by Willie Bud Reed, Jr., Doc. 1252. Defendant argues that he is entitled to a reduced sentence

based on Amendments 706 and 711 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”).

The Court determined that Defendant’s Base Offense Level under the Guidelines increased to

level 38, with a Total Offense Level of 41. Defendant’s original sentence of 420 months was

therefore unaffected by Amendments 706 and 711.

Defendant additionally argues that he would like to have been held responsible for a

lesser amount of cocaine base than he was for his original sentencing. Amendments 706 and 711

of the Guidelines do not allow the sentencing court to revisit the facts and circumstances of the

sentencing. See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780-81 (11th Cir. 2000) (with the

exception of the guideline changed by the amendment, all original sentencing determinations

remain unchanged). Therefore, this argument cannot be considered. 

Defendant simultaneously argues that the rule of lenity should apply to reduce his
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:88-cr-01007-MP-AK

sentence, which is not persuasive because the rule of lenity is a tool of statutory interpretation to

determine whether conduct can be punished, not to reduce a sentence for clearly culpable

conduct as Defendant requests here. The rule of lenity ensures fair warning by resolving

ambiguity in a criminal statute as to apply it only to conduct clearly covered. See, e.g. Liparota

v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 427 (1985). Here, there is no doubt that possession of cocaine

base is prohibited by statute, so there is no question as to whether the rule of lenity could apply

to make Defendant’s possession of cocaine base innocent. It could not apply as Defendant

requests, and does not.

None of Defendant’s arguments in this Motion have legal merit. Accordingly, the

Motion is DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of November, 2009

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
39–008 

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 108–794 

WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 4818, CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 AND 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 114, MAKING FURTHER 

CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2005, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES 

NOVEMBER 20, 2004.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. PUTNAM, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 866] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 866, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives all points of order against the conference 

report to accompany H.R. 4818, the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2005, and against its consideration. The rule provides that the 

conference report shall be considered as read. 

Section 2 of the resolution provides for consideration of H.R. Res. 

114 under a closed rule. The rule provides one hour of debate in 

the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 

ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The 

rule waives all points of order against consideration of the joint 

resolution. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit H.J. 

Res. 114. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to clause 3(b) of House rule XIII the results of each 

record vote on an amendment or motion to report, together with 

the names of those voting for and against, are printed below: 

Rules Committee Record Vote No. 326 

Date: November 20, 2004. 

Measure: Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 4818, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005. 

Motion by: Mr. McGovern. 

2 

Summary of motion: To amend the rule to make in order a concurrent resolution that would direct the enrolling clerk to insert 

language to increase funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981. 

Results: Defeated 3 to 7. 

Vote by Members: Linder—Nay; Pryce—Nay; Diaz-Balart—Nay; 

Hastings (WA)—Nay; Myrick—Nay; Putnam—Nay; Frost—Yea; 

Slaughter—Yea; McGovern—Yea; Dreier—Nay. 

Æ
#### § 29.2279 Length.

The linear measurement of cured tobacco leaves from the butt of the midrib to the extreme tip.
Exhibit 99.3  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT  I, Ronald A. Brenneman, certify that:  1.I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Petro-Canada;  2.Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;  4.The
issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the issuer and have:  a)designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;  b)evaluated
the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and  c)disclosed
in this report any change in the issuers internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report  that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over
financial reporting; and  5.The
issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers
auditors and the audit committee of the issuers board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):  a)all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and  b)any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the issuers control over financial reporting.  Date: March 24, 2005/s/ Ronald A. BrennemanRonald A. BrennemanPresident and Chief Executive Officer
§ 30.42 Class 7; miscellaneous domestic types. No group divisions are established for any of the types in Class 7. Notwithstanding the definitions of “Class,” “Type,” “Type 11,” “Type 12,” “Type 13,” and “Type 14,” any tobacco having the general visual characteristics of quality, color and length of the types and groups contained in Class 1, flue-cured tobacco, but which is a strain or variety found in its cured state by an authorized representative of the Department to have a nicotine content of not more than eight-tenths of one per cent (8 ⁄ 10 of 1%), oven dry weight, shall be designated upon certification by the Department as Class 7: *Provided,* That for the purpose of establishing and maintaining the identity of such tobacco, it shall not be sold or offered for sale through customary marketing channels for Class 1, flue-cured tobacco; and it shall be identified in accordance with instructions issued by the Tobacco Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, covering certification of seed or seedlings, contracts for production, designation and demarcation of fields in which grown, maintenance of separate identity of such tobacco from other tobacco, furnishing of samples and furnishing of such information as may be requested relating to production, stocks, and disposition of such tobacco. For tobacco stocks reporting purposes, all miscellaneous domestic tobacco shall be designated as follows: ( a ) *Type 72.* That type of tobacco commonly known as Louisiana Perique, or Perique, produced principally in St. James Parish located in southeastern Louisiana.
( b ) *Type 73.* All domestic-grown tobacco not otherwise classified, including tobacco cured in the same manner as Class 1, flue-cured tobacco, but having a nicotine content of not more than eight-tenths of one percent (8 ⁄ 10 of 1%), oven dry weight. Also included in the miscellaneous types are such types as Ohio Flue-cured and Fire-cured (known as Eastern Ohio), Upper Country Maryland, California, Turkish, and Virginia One-sucker, and the production of the insular possessions of the United States not otherwise classified.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

ALBERT FRASCHETTI,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 188 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5th day of October, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### § 29.3614 Rule 13.

Length shall be stated in connection with each grade of the A, B, and C groups, except strip grades, and may be stated in connection with grades of other groups. For this purpose, the standard tobacco sizes shall be used. (See Applicable Standard Sizes, § 29.3681.)

[51 FR 40408, Nov. 7, 1986]
EXHIBIT 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
333-30499, 333-41483, and 333-87575 of Edison Control Corporation on Form S-8 of
our report dated April 1, 2003 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion
and includes an explanatory paragraph referring to the Company's adoption of
Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 142, Goodwill and Other
Intangible Assets), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Edison
Control Corporation for the year ended January 31, 2003.





/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
April 22, 2003
SERVED JULY 18, 2011 

OERARTMENTOF 

U.S. DEPARTNIENT OF TRANSPORTATION ..]?;• ;NSP0RTATI0N • 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS ' '-^^ '-^ ' OrtriATlONS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

^Oii JUL !8. P 2- 30 

IN THE MATTER OF 

K. S. AVIATION, INC. 

d/b/a SIERRA ACADEMY OF AERONAUTICS 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-201 1 -0483 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 201IWP170009) has been 

assigned to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and 

other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA 

•Hearing Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

Ronnie A. Voder 

Chief Administrative 

Attachment - Service List 
•'•}lfl ' 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0483 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

C>Til L. Lawrence, Respondent's Counsel 

Cyril Lawrence, Inc. 

2111 K Street 

Merced, CA 95340 

TEL: 209-383-6854 

FAX: 209-383-6856 

Lierre Green, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney. Office of the Regional Counsel 

Western-Pacific Region, AWP-7.6 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7117 

FAX: 310-725-6816 . . 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, 

Admimstraiive Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Sen'ice was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by cxpediled courier, use llic Jbllowing address: 

Federal Aviation Admini.siration, 600 Independence Avenue. S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 

2 W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

- 2 -
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:88-cr-01007-MP-AK

RUFUS C. ROCHELL,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1097, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, recommending that Plaintiff’s “Complaints in Actions Grounded on Federal

Question of a Special Federal Statute,” Doc. 1093, be denied with prejudice. The Magistrate

Judge filed the Report and Recommendation on Friday, May 26, 2006. 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), this Court must

make a de novo review of those portions to which an objection has been made. 

Defendant has filed objections to the Magistrate’s Report, Doc. 1100. In his objections,

the defendant claims that he is not seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. While defendant

argues that his motion should not be construed as a petition under § 2255, defendant is ultimately

seeking to vacate his sentence. Specifically, defendant requests that this court enter an order

“finding anyone sentenced under the mandatory provision[s] of [the] United States Sentencing

Guidelines[] to be unconstitutionally sentenced.” Doc. 1093 at 2. Therefore, defendant's motion

is actually a request for a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Farris v. United

States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing Mobley v. Head, 306 F.3d 1096 (11th

Case 1:88-cr-01007-MW-GRJ Document 1103 Filed 06/29/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:88-cr-01007-MP-AK

Cir.2002)). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, "a second or successive motion must be certified as

provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals ." Defendant has failed

to obtain authorization from the court of appeals prior to filing this motion. In fact, the Eleventh

Circuit has rejected such requests by the defendant. See Doc. 1083. Therefore, this Court is

without jurisdiction to consider the Defendant's motion. See Farris, 333 F.3d at 1216. 

Therefore, having considered the Report and Recommendation and all objections thereto

filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted with respect to

its analysis and conclusion that defendant’s filing constitutes an unauthorized second or

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Since the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain defendant’s

claim, the action should be dismissed. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated

by reference in this order in so far as it concludes that defendant’s filing

constitutes a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.

2. Plaintiff’s “Complaints in Actions Grounded on Federal Question of a Special

Federal Statute,” Doc. 1093, is DISMISSED. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of June, 2006

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:88-cr-01007-MW-GRJ Document 1103 Filed 06/29/06 Page 2 of 2