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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 1:19-cr-36-AW-MAL

1:21-cv-103-AW-MAL

CURTIS LEE WOODS JR.,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING § 2255 RELIEF

Curtis Woods pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. He 

did not appeal his conviction or his 120-month sentence. He later filed a § 2255 

motion, seeking to vacate the conviction. ECF No. 47. The magistrate judge issued 

a report and recommendation concluding no relief was warranted. ECF No. 54. 

Woods has filed no objection.

Having carefully considered the matter, I conclude the report and 

recommendation should be adopted, and I incorporate it into this order. The clerk 

will enter a judgment that says, “The § 2255 motion is denied on the merits.” A 

certificate of appealability is denied. The clerk will close the file. 

SO ORDERED on October 10, 2023.

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 1:19-cr-00036-AW-MAL Document 55 Filed 10/10/23 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

EDUARDO VASQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-134-TKW/MJF

K. BISHOP, 

Defendant.

/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation (Doc. 22). No objections were filed. Upon due consideration of 

the Report and Recommendation and the case file, the Court agrees with the 

magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

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

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED, and the Clerk shall close the case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of May, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-04-308-CV

IN THE MATTER OF J.W.M.	

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

	FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant J.W.M. is attempting to appeal the trial court’s judgment of delinquency, which was signed June 21, 2004.  Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial, so his notice of appeal was due September 20, 2004; however, Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until October 1, 2004.  Because Appellant’s notice of appeal appeared untimely, we notified Appellant on October 8, 2004 of our concern that this court may not have jurisdiction over the appeal and informed him that unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with this court a response showing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal, this appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 26.3(b), 42.3(a).  We have received no response.

	The times for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional in this court, and absent a timely filed notice of appeal or an extension request, we must dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b), 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (holding once extension period has passed, a party can no longer invoke an appellate court's jurisdiction).  The rules of appellate procedure allow us to extend the time to file a notice of appeal if the party files its notice of appeal within fifteen days after the deadline and files a motion that reasonably explains the need for an extension.  See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b)(1)(C), 26.3.  

	A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant acting in good faith files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by rule 26.1 but within the fifteen-day period in which the appellant would be entitled to move to extend the filing deadline under rule 26.3.  See Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617; see also Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 26.3.  Even when a motion for extension is implied, however, it is still necessary for the appellant to reasonably explain the need for an extension.  See Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617.  Because Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely and he did not provide a reasonable explanation for needing an extension of time to file even after being given the opportunity to do so, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

							PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	MCCOY, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.

DELIVERED:  November 24, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.94

GMAC
----
COMMERCIAL
CREDIT LLC

                                                                August 28, 2001

Bernard Chaus, Inc.
530 Seventh Avenue
New York, New York 10018
Attention: Josephine Chaus, Chairwoman of the Board

Bernard Chaus, Inc.
800 Secaucus Road
Secaucus, New Jersey 07094
Attention: Bart Heminover, Vice President of Finance

Ladies/Gentlemen:

     Reference is made to the Second Restated and Amended Financing Agreement
between you and us as successor-in-interest to BNY Financial Corporation, dated
as of October 10, 1997, as supplemented and amended (the "Financing Agreement").
Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein have the respective
meanings given to them in the Financing Agreement.

     It is hereby agreed that, effective as of the date hereof, the Financing
Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

     1.   Section 9.1(e) is amended to provide that the Borrower will not permit
          its Working Capital to be less than the following amounts on the
          following dates, respectively.

               "As of June 30, 2001          $14,000,000
                As of September 30, 2001     $12,700,000
                As of December 31, 2001         $400,000
                As of March 31, 2002          $2,150,000
                As of June 30, 2002           $2,000,000"

     Except as hereinabove specifically set forth, the Financing Agreement shall
remain unmodified and in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.



<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.94

If you are in agreement with the foregoing, please so indicate by signing and
returning to us the enclosed copy of this letter.



                                                  Very truly yours,

                                                  GMAC COMMERCIAL CREDIT LLC



                                           By: /s/ Frank Imperato
                                              -------------------------------
                                              Name:  Frank Imperato
                                              Title: SVP

AGREED AND ACCEPTED:

BERNARD CHAUS, INC.

By: Barton Heminover
   Name: Barton Heminover
   Title: Vice President of Finance

CHAUS RETAIL, INC.
(Guarantor)

By: Barton Heminover
   Name: Barton Heminover
   Title: Vice President of Finance
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EDISON CONTROL CORPORATION AS OF AND FOR
THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,666,331
<SECURITIES>                                 5,590,680
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,071,627
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  6,793,616
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,987,009
<PP&E>                                       6,617,051
<DEPRECIATION>                                 388,781
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              37,051,432
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,744,248
<BONDS>                                     18,731,516
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,509
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,097,159
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                37,051,432
<SALES>                                      1,000,813
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,000,813
<CGS>                                          726,180
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  726,180
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              38,333
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (135,051)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    55,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (80,051)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (80,051)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 29.2405 Rule 14.

The standard tobacco size 2 shall be used to designate X group tobacco of M or G color when such tobacco is 20 inches or over in length.

[51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
#### § 29.3618 Rule 17.

Any lot of tobacco which is not green but contains over 30 percent of variegated leaves shall be described as “variegated” and designated by the color symbol “M.” Variegated leaves may be included in any group to the following extent: In the third quality, 10 percent; in the fourth quality, 20 percent; and in the fifth quality, 30 percent.
#### § 29.2556 Strips.

The sides of a tobacco leaf from which the stem has been removed or a lot of tobacco composed of strips.

[37 FR 13626, July 12, 1972. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984 and 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
#### § 29.2547 Semifired (SF).

Tobacco that is partially or lightly smoked or has not received the amount of smoke that is characteristic of fire-cured tobacco.

[51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
§ 249.25 Other provisions. ( a ) *No aid reduction.* Any programs for which a grant is received under this part shall be supplementary to the food stamp program carried out under the Food Stamp Act of 1977 as amended (7 U.S.C. 2011, *et seq.*) and to any other Federal or State food or nutrition assistance program.
( b ) *Statistical information.* FNS reserves the right to use information obtained under the SFMNP in a summary, statistical or other form that does not identify particular individuals.
( c ) *Exclusion of benefits in determining eligibility for other programs.* The value of any benefit provided to any eligible SFMNP recipient shall not be considered to be income or resources for any purposes under any Federal, State or local law.
[71 FR 74630, Dec. 12, 2006, as amended at 74 FR 48375, Sept. 23, 2009]
**Exhibit32.1**

 

Certification of PrincipalExecutive Officer

Pursuant to

Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/Afor the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”) of Federal ServicesAcquisition Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Joel R. Jacks, Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 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:  December  5, 2006 | By:    | /s/    Joel R. Jacks |
|--------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|                     |   | **Joel R. Jacks**                        |
|                     |   | **Chairman and Chief Executive Officer** |
|                     |   | **(Principal Executive Officer)**        |

 

1

----
Editorial Note on Part 300
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 300 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 300.2 Dry Kiln Operator's Manual. ( a ) The Dry Kiln Operator's Manual, which was published in August 1991 as Agriculture Handbook No. 188 by the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, has been approved for incorporation by reference in 7 CFR chapter III by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
( b ) The kiln drying schedules specified in the Dry Kiln Operator's Manual provide a method by which certain articles regulated by “Subpart I—Logs, Lumber, and Other Wood Articles ” (7 CFR 319.40-1 through 319.40-11) may be imported into the United States.
( c ) *Availability.* Copies of the Dry Kiln Operator's Manual: ( 1 ) Are available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html ;* or
( 2 ) Are for sale as ISBN 0-16-035819-1 by the U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328.
[67 FR 8463, Feb. 25, 2002 as amended at 84 FR 2427, Feb. 7, 2019]
#### SHENSTONE, Appellant, v. DOWSE, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 15, 1906.)

Action by Archibald C. Shenstone against William B. Dowse. A. C. Shenstone, for appellant. H. B. Twombly, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
M. P. No. 79-295.

#### Donald Okoniewski *v.*Board of Review, Rhode Island Department of Employment Security.

Mr. Chief Justice Bevilacqua did not participate.

*Mortimer C. Newton,*for petitioner.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ERNEST R. GIBSON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:19cv469-MW/MAF

MAJOR J. KYSLER, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Recommendation, ECF No. 26, and has also reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s response 

agreeing with the report and recommendation, ECF No. 27. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

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

opinion. This case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, for all further proceedings. The Clerk 

shall also close the file.

SO ORDERED on May 27, 2020.

s/ MARK E. WALKER

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-00469-MW-MAF Document 28 Filed 05/27/20 Page 1 of 1
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.2 RULE 13A-14(A) CERTIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Edward D. Ford, Director and acting Chief Accounting Officer of International Gemini Technology
Inc. (the Company), certify that: 1. I have reviewed this
annual report on Form 20-F/A of the Company; 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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The Company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 Company 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 Company, 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 Company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 Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting;
and 5. The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation
of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of
the Company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 Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting. 
 Date: November 1, 2005 
 /s/ Edward D. FordEdward D. FordDirector and acting Chief Accounting Officer
§ 2903.17 Award document and notice of award. ( a ) The award document will provide pertinent instructions and information including, at a minimum, the following: ( 1 ) Legal name and address of performing organization or institution to whom OEPNU has issued an award under this program;
( 2 ) Title of project;
( 3 ) Name(s) and institution(s) of PDs chosen to direct and control approved activities;
( 4 ) Identifying award number assigned by the Department;
( 5 ) Project period;
( 6 ) Total amount of Departmental financial assistance approved by OEPNU during the project period;
( 7 ) Legal authority(ies) under which the award is issued;
( 8 ) Appropriate Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number;
( 9 ) Approved budget plan for categorizing allocable project funds to accomplish the stated purpose of the award; and
( 10 ) Other information or provisions deemed necessary by OEPNU and the Authorized Departmental Officer to carry out the awarding activities or to accomplish the purpose of a particular award.
( b ) [Reserved]
#### ENSINGER, Respondent, v. HEALY et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 15, 1906.)

Action by Grace Ensinger against John Healy, impleaded with others.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs an•d disbursements.
98-1127.

#### State v. Tennyson.

Hamilton App. No. C-970445. *Sua sponte,*cause held for the decision in 97-1985, *State v. Cook,*Allen App. No. 1-97-21; briefing schedule stayed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:02cr44-SPM/AK

TAVIUS J. PATTERSON,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s report

and recommendation dated June 27, 2005 (doc. 50). Defendant has been

furnished a copy of the report and recommendation and filed objections (doc.

51). Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I find that the

report and recommendation is correct and should be adopted by the Court. 

The indictment appears to be valid in all respects and Defendant’s 2255

motion does not adequately identify what he claims is wrong with the indictment. 

In any event, Defendant’s 2255 motion is untimely. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 50) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Defendant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence

Case 4:02-cr-00044-MCR-AK Document 52 Filed 10/20/05 Page 1 of 2
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 49) is denied. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of October, 2005.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cr-00044-MCR-AK Document 52 Filed 10/20/05 Page 2 of 2
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of

well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the

public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that

Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20327

Conference Calendar

__________________

STEVEN WAYNE BROWN,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

C. GILLILAND ET AL.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-93-2301

- - - - - - - - - -

December 21, 1995

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Steven Wayne Brown appeals the dismissal of his civil rights

action as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Brown

lists several issues for appeal regarding his claims of mailroom

misconduct and use of excessive force against him; recites a

number of factual allegations regarding his mailroom misconduct

claims; and contends in conclusional fashion that the district

court did not review the record sufficiently before dismissing
No. 95-20327

-2-

his case, condoned the defendants' misconduct, and was not aware

of the jurisdiction of the U.S. Postal Service to redress

complaints regarding institutional mail. Brown has failed to

provide legal arguments sufficient to brief the issues he

indicates he wishes to raise for appeal. His conclusional

allegations of error by the district court are insufficient to

provide this court a basis for review of the judgment. See Grant

v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 525 (5th Cir. 1995), Andrews v. Collins,

21 F.3d 612, 632 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 908

(1995). Because Brown has failed to brief any issues, his appeal

is frivolous.

We caution Brown that any additional frivolous appeals filed

by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid

sanctions, Brown is further cautioned to review any pending

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous because they previously have been decided by this

court.

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:89-cr-01018-MP

LUIS LAZARO VIERA,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1213, Second Motion for (2) Certified Copies of

Docket Sheet and Copy of Presentence Investigation Report at Government Expense, filed by

Luis Lazaro Viera. Mr. Viera currently has no pending matters before the Court, and has

exhausted all avenues of appellate and collateral relief. See Order at 1210 and Order at doc.

1194, Eleventh Circuit order denying application for leave to file a second or successive § 2255

motion as to Luis Lazaro Viera. Accordingly, his motion for certified copies, doc. 1213, is

denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of April, 2006

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:89-cr-01018-MP-GRJ Document 1214 Filed 04/27/06 Page 1 of 1