alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:95cr3005LAC

CARLOS MOSQUEDA

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on December 16, 2005

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION : Stay and Abey (To preserve recent rulings by the United States

Supreme Court 

Filed byDEFENDANT PRO SE on12/6/05 Doc.# 270

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 21st day of

December, 2005, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) Booker is not retroactively applicable. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:95-cr-03005-LC-EMT Document 271 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Robert Allen, Deceased, by his Widow, Monica A. Castner, Appellant, v American Airlines et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 25, 1979, which affirmed a referee’s decision disallowing the claim. The decedent, Robert Allen, was a copilot in the employ of American Airlines. On October 20,1971, in the course of a company required annual physical exam, decedent’s chest was Xrayed. The examining physician, who was also in the employ of American Airlines, interpreted the X ray as being within normal limits. On January 22, 1972, decedent was examined by his private physician. X rays taken at that time revealed the presence of a mass in the chest area. Shortly thereafter surgery was performed for the removal of a tumor designated a malignant carcinoma. On April 10,1972 decedent was examined and cleared for flight duty by American Airlines. He expired on June 14, 1972 of a malignant teratomatosis. Dr. Rapaport, a radiologist, testified that the X rays taken on October 20,1971 and those taken on January 22, 1972 were virtually carbon copies. Dr. Rapaport testified that the failure to observe the mass in the earlier X ray fell below the level of accepted standards of practice. The board ruled that “based on Dr. Econ’s testimony * * * claimant sustained neither an accident or occupational disease within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law.” Appellant contends that the failure to properly interpret the X ray constituted an industrial accident. We disagree. The decision of the board is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed. Appellant’s reliance on *Golini v Nachtigall*(38 NY2d 745), *Garcia v Iserson*(33 NY2d 421) and *Schulz u Wyckoff Hgts. Hosp.*(51 AD2d 1026) is misplaced. In each of these cases, treatment was rendered for a *918work-connected malady. Here, the X ray taken by Dr. Econ was as a result of a routine physical examination and not in the course of either treatment or examination for a work-related injury or condition. In the absence of the employer’s participation going beyond mere examination to some kind of active conduct or attempted treatment aggravating the noncompensable condition, the incident in most cases will be found to be noncompensable (see 2A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 68.35, pp 13-39,13-40). Appellant also cites *Liantonio v Baum*(91 Misc 2d 433), but in that case the employee visited the employer’s physician for purposes of treatment for a work-related shoulder pain. He was examined for purposes of treatment and his injury was diagnosed as a “strained muscle, right arm.” A cell tumor in the right humerus was missed and later discovered. The situation at bar is distinguishable (see *Wojcik v Aluminum Co. of Amer.,*18 Misc 2d 740). Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur; Staley, Jr., J., not taking part.
#### § 28.123 Costs of practical forms of cotton standards.

The costs of practical forms of the cotton standards of the United States are as follows:

| Effective date: July 1, 1992 | Dollars each box or roll | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Domestic shipments | | Shipments delivered outside the continental United States | |
| f.o.b. Memphis, TN | Surface delivery | Air freight collect | Air parcel post delivered |
| Grade Standards: | | | | |
| American Upland | $125 | $130 | $125 | $165 |
| American Pima | 160 | 165 | 160 | 200 |
| Standards for length of staple: | | | | |
| American Upland (prepared in one pound rolls for each length) | 19 | 22 | 19 | 33 |
| American Pima (prepared in one pound rolls for each length) | 20 | 23 | 20 | 34 |

[[57 FR 27892](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/57-FR-27892), June 23, 1992]
§ 1744.68 Order and method of advances of telephone loan funds. ( a ) Borrowers may specify the sequence of advances of funds under any combination of approved telephone loans from RUS or FFB, except that for all loans approved on or after November 1, 1993, the borrower may use loan funds: ( 1 ) Only for purposes for which that type of loan (*i.e.* Hardship, RUS cost-of-money, or FFB) may be made; and
( 2 ) Only in exchanges that qualify for the type of loan from which the funds are drawn.
( b ) The first or subsequent advances of loan funds may be conditioned on the satisfaction of certain requirements stated in the borrower's loan contract.
( c ) Normally, only one payment is made by the Automatic Clearing House (ACH) for an advance of funds.
( d ) Borrowers of RUS funds may request advances by wire service only for amounts greater than $500,000 or for advances to borrowers outside the Continental United States. FFB advances in any amount over $100,000 can be sent by wire service.
( e ) The following information shall be included with the FRS: ( 1 ) Name and address of borrower's bank.
( 2 ) If borrower's bank is not a member of the Federal Reserve System, the name and address of its correspondent bank that is a member of the Federal Reserve System.
( 3 ) American Bankers Association (ABA) nine digit identifier of the receiving banks (routing number and check digit).
( 4 ) Borrower's bank account title and number.
( 5 ) Any other necessary identifying information.
[54 FR 12186, Mar. 24, 1989. Redesignated at 55 FR 39395, Sept. 27, 1990, as amended at 58 FR 66257, Dec. 20, 1993, as amended at 84 FR 59922, Nov. 7, 2019]
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO §906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the
dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
 August 22, 2005
 /s/ Jeff D. MorrisJeff D. MorrisPresident and Chief Executive Officer /s/ Shai EvenShai EvenVice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer
§ 2903.3 Eligibility. ( a ) Eligibility is limited to nonprofit organizations and institutions of higher education that have demonstrated both knowledge of biodiesel fuel production, use, or distribution and the ability to conduct educational and technical support programs.
( b ) Award recipients may subcontract to organizations not eligible to apply provided such organizations are necessary for the conduct of the project.
§ 3.12 Reporting of debts to Credit Reporting Agencies. ( a ) In demand letters to debtors sent in accordance with § 3.11, agencies will inform debtors: ( 1 ) The intent of the agency to report the delinquent debt to credit reporting agencies after 60 days;
( 2 ) The specific information to be transmitted (that is, name, address, and taxpayer identification number, information about the debt);
( 3 ) The actions which may be taken by the debtor to prevent the reporting (that is, repayment in full or a repayment agreement); and
( 4 ) The rights of the debtor to request review of the existence of the debt in accordance with subpart F of this part.
( b ) Disclosure of delinquent consumer debts must be consistent with the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3711(e), the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Bankruptcy Code, and 31 CFR 901.4.
( c ) When an agency has given a debtor any of the notices required by this part and an opportunity for administrative review under subpart F of this part, the agency need not duplicate such notice and review opportunities before reporting the delinquent debt to credit reporting agencies.
( d ) Agencies will not disclose a delinquent debt to a credit reporting agency if a debtor requests review under subpart F of this part until a final determination is made by a reviewing official that upholds the agency intent to disclose.
Case 4:01-cv-00385-SPM Document 8 Filed 10/05/01 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

Case No: 3:20cv3681/MCR/EMT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

BILLIE RUTH GRAHAM 

and RANDY LEE GRAHAM,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Case No: 3:20cv3681/MCR/EMT

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on October 

15, 2020 (ECF No. 9). 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). I have made a de novo determination of all 

timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 

objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9) 

is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 3:20-cv-03681-MCR-EMT Document 12 Filed 11/19/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 3:20cv3681/MCR/EMT

2. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for Plaintiffs’ failure 

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

3. The Clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of November, 2020.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-03681-MCR-EMT Document 12 Filed 11/19/20 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit      99.11**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**

**PURSUANT      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| 1. | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                  |                                                                                                                                |
|-------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:   October                1, 2007 | /s/                E.F.H. RobertsE.                F. H. RobertsExecutive                Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                                  |                                                                                                                                |
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2074 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2074

 To direct the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Animal and 
   Plant Health Inspection Service, to submit to Congress, and make 
available to the public on the Internet, a report on the animals killed 
  under the Wildlife Services program of the Animal and Plant Health 
                          Inspection Service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2013

Mrs. Davis of California (for herself, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Moran, and Mr. 
  Campbell) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Animal and 
   Plant Health Inspection Service, to submit to Congress, and make 
available to the public on the Internet, a report on the animals killed 
  under the Wildlife Services program of the Animal and Plant Health 
                          Inspection Service.

    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 ``Transparency for Lethal Control 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON ANIMALS KILLED UNDER WILDLIFE SERVICES PROGRAM OF THE 
              ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE.

    Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
and annually thereafter, the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through 
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, shall submit to 
Congress, and make available to the public on the Internet, a report on 
the animals killed under the wildlife services program under section 1 
of the Act of March 2, 1931 (7 U.S.C. 426; 46 Stat. 1468) or by a State 
or local entity acting in cooperation with or on behalf of the wildlife 
services program during the preceding calendar year, including--
            (1) the number of such animals killed, listed by State, 
        county (or other similar political subdivision of a State), and 
        municipality;
            (2) the species name for such animals;
            (3) the method used to kill such animals; and
            (4) the reasons that the Secretary determined that--
                    (A) the species of such animals were injurious; and
                    (B) killing such animals was necessary.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 28.961 False and misleading information.

The publication or communication by any person of false or misleading information concerning the results of tests as reported by laboratories under the regulations in this subpart shall be deemed sufficient cause for denial of testing services to such persons.

[35 FR 8532, June 3, 1970. Redesignated at 46 FR 30075, June 5, 1981]
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DERRICK L. WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:19-cv-182-AW-GRJ

PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Derrick Walker sued Progressive Select Insurance Company, asserting 

various claims related to its claim handing. Progressive moved to dismiss, and the 

magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that recommended dismissal. 

ECF No. 25. No objections have been filed. I have considered the report and 

recommendation, which I now adopt and incorporate into this order. The motion to 

dismiss (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED, and the Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED

without prejudice. 

Because it is not clear that Walker could not allege to state a claim for breach 

of contract (as opposed to a bad-faith claim, which the report and recommendation 

correctly concludes is unripe), I will allow Walker to file an amended complaint. He 

must do so within 20 days; otherwise he will be deemed to have abandoned the case. 

Case 1:19-cv-00182-AW-GRJ Document 26 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 2
2

If Walker timely files an amended complaint, the clerk must return the matter 

to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED on September 25, 2020. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 1:19-cv-00182-AW-GRJ Document 26 Filed 09/25/20 Page 2 of 2
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:94cr3154 LAC

DAMEON DALEY

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on September 15, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: RECONSIDERATION MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on 8/25/2008 Doc.# 260

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 17th day of

September, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:94-cr-03154-LC-MD Document 264 Filed 09/17/08 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of James River Group, Inc.****(the “Company”) for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, J. Adam Abram, Chief Executive Officer, and Michael T. Oakes, 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| October 30, 2006 |   | /s/ J. Adam Abram                                    |
|------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|             |   | J. Adam Abram

President and Chief Executive Officer |
|             |   |                                                 |
|             |   | /s/ Michael T. Oakes                                 |
|             |   | Michael T. Oakes

Chief Financial Officer            |
#### In re: E.S. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC., Debtor. *295DHL Aero Expresso, S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E.S. Professional Services, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-15152.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Oct. 10, 2007.

Robert Joseph Edwards, Brian Scott Behar, Behar Gutt & Glazer, P.A., Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Alan S. Feldman, Lydecker *&*Wads-worth, L.L.C., Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before ANDERSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and ALBRITTON,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable W. Harold Albritton, III, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude that the judgment of the district court is due to be affirmed. We conclude that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance. We discern no error in the conclusion of the courts below that DHL failed to prove that the debtor had fewer than 12 creditors. *See*11 U.S.C. § 303(b) (although a single qualified creditor may file an involuntary bankruptcy petition if there are fewer than 12 creditors, the statute requires three or more qualified creditors to file an involuntary bankruptcy petition if there are 12 or more such creditors).1 We decline to address DHL’s argument concerning payments to creditors post-petition, because it was not raised in the bankruptcy court.

AFFIRMED.

1

. We also conclude that the appeal is not moot. The parties dispute whether the bankruptcy court made a ruling pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 305 (permitting a bankruptcy court to dismiss a case where "the interests of creditors and the debtor would be better served by such dismissal.”). The parties also dispute whether the district court’s ruling based on § 305 was dicta. Assuming *arguendo,*but not deciding, that the courts below did dismiss the case relying alternatively upon § 305 as well as upon 11 U.S.C. § 303, we nevertheless conclude that this appeal is not moot. The § 303 issue is a live issue because the pending claims for damages and attorney’s fees depend upon the validity of the § 303 ruling.
**Exhibit32.2**

Certification ofPrincipal Financial OfficerPursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”) of ATS Corporation (the“Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Pamela A. Little, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, herebycertify that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Registrant.
| Date: August 8, 2007 |       | By:        |       | /s/ Pamela A.  Little              |
|----------------------|------------|------------|------------|------------------------------------|
|                 | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | **Pamela  A. Little**              |
|                 | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | **Chief  Financial Officer**       |
|                 | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | **(Principal  Financial Officer)** |

 

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:98cr125-01/RV

WILLIAM EVERETT ROBINSON 

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Senior Judge Roger Vinson on December 15, 2008

Motion/Pleadings: Motion to Reduce Sentence (re Retroactive Application of Sentencing

Guidelines to Crack Cocaine Offense 18 USC 3582) 

Filed by Defendant on 11/30/2009 Doc.# 112

RESPONSES:

 United States on 12/14/2009 Doc.# 113

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

 s/Jerry Marbut

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Jerry Marbut

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 15th day of 

 March , 2010, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) The Defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendments

706,7l1 and 715. He was sentenced to a minimum mandatory term of imprisonment.

 /s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge