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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

GENERAL GRANT BELL,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20cv40-TKW-MJF 

BARBARA M. FINCH,

Defendant.

/

OR D E R

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

Recommendation (Doc. 10). No objections were filed. Having reviewed the Report 

and Recommendation and the case file, I agree with the magistrate judge’s 

determination that this case should be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to fully 

disclose his litigation history. 

The Court has not overlooked the amended complaint (Doc. 11) filed by 

Plaintiff in response to the Report and Recommendation. The amended complaint 

lists additional cases (and attaches a print-out from the Clerk’s office with a list of 

the cases Plaintiff filed in this Court) in response to the questions on the complaint 

form regarding Plaintiff’s litigation history. Even if the amended complaint provides 

a complete list of Plaintiff’s prior cases, that does not excuse his failure to fully 

disclose his litigation history in his original complaint. Nor does the amended 

Case 5:20-cv-00040-TKW-MJF Document 12 Filed 06/22/20 Page 1 of 2
2

complaint provide a basis for the Court to impose a sanction less than dismissal 

because, as explained in the Report and Recommendation, providing Plaintiff an 

opportunity to amend his complaint to disclose the previous lawsuits would 

essentially be no penalty and would equate to overlooking his mendacity and abuse 

of the judicial process. Doc. 6, at 11 (citing Hood v. Tompkins, 197 F. App’x 818, 

819 (11th Cir. 2006)).

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 file.

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00040-TKW-MJF Document 12 Filed 06/22/20 Page 2 of 2
§ 3.60 Applicability. ( a ) This section establishes consolidated administrative review procedures for debts subject to administrative offset, administrative wage garnishment, and disclosure to credit reporting agencies, under subparts D and E of this part. A hearing or review under this section will satisfy the required opportunity for administrative review by the agency of the determination of a debt for both administrative offset and administrative wage garnishment that is required before transfer to Treasury for collection or collection by the agency through non-centralized administrative offset.
( b ) For debt collection proceedings initiated by FSA, CCC (with respect to domestic programs), FCIC, the Rural Housing Service, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, the Risk Management Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Rural Development, and the Rural Utilities Service (but not for programs authorized by the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 or the Rural Telephone Bank Act, 7 U.S.C. 901-950cc-2), part 11 of this title will be applicable and not the provisions of this subpart.
[85 FR 36672, June 17, 2020, as amended at 88 FR 89276, Dec. 27, 2023]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:00cr40-RH

EVERETT BURNSIDE, DOCKET NO. 4:06mj47-WCS

Defendant.

 / 

O R D E R

The Defendant appeared before the undersigned on a first appearance today

to answer to the charges of violating his supervised release. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Defendant shall appear before Judge

Hinkle on May 4, 2006, beginning at 12:45 P.M., for a revocation hearing.

Until that appearance, Defendant will remain subject to the conditions of supervised

release. 

DONE AND ORDERED on April 12, 2006.

 S/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:00-cr-00040-RH Document 38 Filed 04/12/06 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 247 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 247

To require that the United States Government prioritize all obligations 
on the debt held by the public, Social Security benefits, and military 
    pay in the event that the debt limit is reached, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 14, 2013

Mr. Schweikert introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require that the United States Government prioritize all obligations 
on the debt held by the public, Social Security benefits, and military 
    pay in the event that the debt limit is reached, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Ensuring the Full Faith and Credit 
of the United States and Protecting America's Soldiers and Seniors 
Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) The Secretary of the Treasury is legally required to 
        carry out the obligations set forth in Public Law 104-121.
            (2) The debt obligations held by the Social Security trust 
        fund may only be redeemed in order to pay Social Security 
        benefits and necessary administrative expenses.
            (3) So long as there is a positive balance of assets in the 
        Social Security trust fund, an appropriate amount of 
        obligations may be converted into an equal amount of publicly 
        held debt in order to finance the full and timely payment of 
        all Social Security obligations without exceeding the debt 
        ceiling.

SEC. 3. PRIORITIZE OBLIGATIONS ON THE DEBT HELD BY THE PUBLIC, SOCIAL 
              SECURITY BENEFITS, AND MILITARY PAY.

    In the event that the debt of the United States Government reaches 
the statutory limit as defined in section 3101 of title 31, United 
States Code, the following shall take equal priority over all other 
obligations incurred by the Government of the United States:
            (1) The authority of the Department of the Treasury 
        contained in section 3123 of title 31, United States Code, to 
        pay with legal tender the principal and interest on debt held 
        by the public.
            (2) The authority of the Commissioner of Social Security to 
        pay monthly old-age, survivors' and disability insurance 
        benefits under title II of the Social Security Act.
            (3) The payment of pay and allowances for members of the 
        Armed Forces on active duty.
                                 <all>
```
USGS Publications Warehouse - Citation View Home

Publication Citation

Online Document Versions

View index page

View document

USGS Store

Currently unavailable through the USGS

Store.

Publication Type USGS Numbered Series

Title Traveltime data for Truckee River between Tahoe City, California, and

Marble Bluff Dam near Nixon, Nevada, 1999

Author Crompton, E. James; Bohman, Larry R.

Year 2000

Series Open-File Report

Series Number 2000-363

Edition -

Language ENGLISH

Publisher U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey ; Information

Services [distributor],

ISSN 0094-9140

Description iv, 24 p. ill., col. map ;28 cm.

USGS Library Call

Number (200) R29o no.2000-363

USGS Home

Contact USGS

Search USGS

Accessibility FOIA Privacy Policies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey

URL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

Page Contact Information: Contact the Pubs Warehouse Team

Page Last modified: 10/31/2011 14:14:07

USGS Publications Warehouse http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr00363

1 of 1 10/31/2011 2:15 PM
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

I, Richard Heyse,
certify that:

1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the Report),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Innophos, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided Innophos, Inc. and will be retained by Innophos, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to
update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

Date: November 14, 2007



/s/ RICHARD HEYSERichard HeyseVice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the requirements of 18
U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2449 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2449

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 18, 2013

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To authorize the President to extend the term of the Agreement for 
Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and 
   the Government of the Republic of Korea Concerning Civil Uses of 
       Nuclear Energy for a period not to exceed March 19, 2016.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO EXTEND THE UNITED STATES-REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
              NUCLEAR COOPERATION AGREEMENT.

    The President is authorized to extend the term of the Agreement for 
Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and 
the Government of the Republic of Korea Concerning Civil Uses of 
Nuclear Energy for a period not to exceed March 19, 2016, 
notwithstanding any other provision of law.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### §§ 1902.12-1902.13 [Reserved]
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

ex rel., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO. 4:03cv101-RH/WCS

BARNES & MORGAN PARTNERSHIP,

etc., et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The relators in this qui tam action have filed a motion for voluntary

dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. The government consents to

dismissal. The government also has responded to the order to show cause entered

April 1, 2005, by indicating it consents to the unsealing of all papers identified in

that order. No other response to the order to show cause has been filed. Upon

consideration, 

IT IS ORDERED:

The relators’ motion to dismiss (document 21) is GRANTED. The clerk

shall enter judgment stating, “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a),

this action is dismissed without prejudice.” The clerk shall unseal all documents

Case 4:03-cv-00101-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/10/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:03cv101-RH/WCS

filed in this action (other than relators’ attorneys’ time records) and shall close the

file.

SO ORDERED this 9th day of May, 2005.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:03-cv-00101-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/10/05 Page 2 of 2
98- 1146.

#### State v. Wogenstahl.

Hamilton App. No. C-930222. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County. On September 9,1998, appellant filed a request for oral argument that is untimely pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. IX(2)(B). Whereas S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(1)(C) prohibits the untimely filing of a document,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that appellant’s request for oral argument be, and hereby is, stricken.
#### SURIANI, Appellant, v. GRIFFIN et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department

October 12, 1906.)

Action by Philip Suriani against Samuel Griffin and others.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal denied, without prejudice to the right of the respondents to renew, unless the appeal is perfected and the case is placed on the calendar of this court for argument.
USGS Publications Warehouse - Citation View Home

Publication Citation

Online Document Versions

View index page

View document

USGS Store

Currently unavailable through the USGS

Store.

Publication Type USGS Numbered Series

Title Radium isotopes as sediment-water interface tracers; Indian River

Lagoon, Florida

Author Swarzenski, Peter W.

Year 2000

Series Open-File Report

Series Number 2000-482

Edition -

Language ENGLISH

Publisher U.S. Geological Survey, Center for Coastal Geology,

ISSN 0094-9140

Description 31 p. ill., maps ;28 cm.

USGS Library Call

Number (200) R29o no.2000-482

USGS Home

Contact USGS

Search USGS

Accessibility FOIA Privacy Policies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey

URL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

Page Contact Information: Contact the Pubs Warehouse Team

Page Last modified: 11/08/2011 16:37:19

USGS Publications Warehouse http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr00482

1 of 1 11/8/2011 4:37 PM
#### Nelson *vs.*Cartmel’s Adminitrator.

[Mr. Chapeze for plaintiff; Mr. *Q.*Wicidiffe for defendant.]

From the Circuit Court for Nelson County.

Appeal *from a J. P.*

*October*30.

A note payable on demand does not hear interest till a demand is made, 7 a judg't for the debt with interest from the proof of any de“erTOnenusSand the error is not cured by remitting the interest on the record, at a subsequent term when the power of the court over the case was at an end.

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Upon an appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of the administrator of Jacob Cartmel, deceased, against" James Nelson, on a promissory note, dated the 30th-of _ , . , 7 , June, 1819, and payable *on demand*— the jury m the Oírcuit Court, without any proof of any other demand than that made by the service ox the wai’rant, found a verdict against Nelson, for the amount of the note *(‡42 82)*
      *8and also, for legal interest from the 30th of June, 1819, until payment should be made ; and the Court rendered judgment accordingly.

A son-in-law is not exonerated of a debt due the father in law, by a manifestation of intention, on the part of the latter, during his last illness, to cancel the debt— the intention not being executed, and the circumstances not amounting to a *donatio causa*mortis.

As interest could not have accrued until after a demand, the judgment for interest is clearly erroneous. And even if, as suggested in argument by the counsel for the administrator, the interest was remitted on the record, at a term subsequent to that at which the judgment was rendered, such a *remittitur,*had it appeared on the record now before us, should be entitled to no judicial consideration or legal effect; because, when it was entered, the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction over the case, and the judgment, not only was not changed, but could not have been — the error being in the verdict and judgment, which were not amendable at a subsequent term.

But there is no other error iii the record. Nelson was not, as he seems to have insisted, entitled to exoneration from the debt, merely because the obligee, who was his father-in-law, had, during his last illness, manifested an intention to cancel the bond, and mate him a present of the amount. Such unexecuted intention did not, of itself, discharge the obligation ; nor was it accompanied by such acts and circumstances as to have made it a *donatio causa mortis.*There was nothing legatory in all that was proved.

Wherefore, for the error in adjudging interest, the judgment of the Circuit Courtis reversed, and the cause remanded.
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. 1:90-cr-01036-MP

ROBERT REE SMITH,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 370, Mr. Smith's Motion for modification of his

sentence under 18 U.S.C. § Section 3582 (c)(2). Generally, a district court may not modify a

term of imprisonment once imposed; however, "in the case of a defendant who has been

sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been

lowered by the Sentencing Commission," upon a defendant's motion, "the court may reduce the

term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that

they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by

the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

In the instant case, Mr. Smith makes the following argument:

Controlling case law gives the District Court the discretion to reduce a sentence

whenever a guideline range has been subsequently lowered by the Sentencing

Commission. Since United States v. Booker, struck down the "mandatory

[a]pplication" of the Guidelines, all guidelines ranges ha[ve] been "subsequently

lowered" by [virtue] of the Booker decision.

Doc. 370, Mr. Smith's Motion for modification of sentence under Title 18 U.S.C. § 3582

(c)(2), p. 5. Petitioner's argument has been expressly rejected by the Eleventh Circuit in United

States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2005)("Booker is a Supreme Court decision, not a

Case 1:90-cr-01036-MP-GRJ Document 371 Filed 01/05/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:90-cr-01036-MP

retroactively applicable guideline amendment by the Sentencing Commission. Therefore,

Booker is inapplicable to § 3582(c)(2) motions."). 

Accordingly, the motion to modify his sentence, doc. 370, is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of January, 2006

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:90-cr-01036-MP-GRJ Document 371 Filed 01/05/06 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

ALONZO MOORE,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:02-cv-00036-MP-AK

ROBERT BUTTERWORTH,

MICHAEL W MOORE,

Respondents.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 30, Report and Recommendations of Magistrate

Judge Kornblum, recommending that the Amended Petition, Doc. 6, be denied as untimely and

dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge filed the Report and Recommendation on

Friday, April 15, 2005. 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. Petitioner has filed an objection.

Petitioner objects to only one aspect of the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation. 

Petitioner asserts that the Magistrate erred in not allowing an additional 90 days, the time allotted

to file a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court following a judgment, to the

statute of limitations period in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) following the dismissal of

Petitioner's final post-conviction motion. The Magistrate held that the 90 day period allowed in 

§ 2244(d)(1) only applies when calculating the finality of a state court judgment, not to a postconviction motion. For post-conviction motions, the Magistrate is correct that Petitioner is not

Case 1:02-cv-00036-MP-AK Document 32 Filed 05/26/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:02-cv-00036-MP-AK

entitled to an additional 90 days to file for a writ of certiorari. Coates v. Byrd, 211 F.3d 1225

(11th Cir. 2002)(discussing the difference between § 2244(d)(1), which allows an additional 90

days for calculating the finality of a judgment and § 2244(d)(2), which does not toll the statute of

limitations for an additional 90 days to file for a writ of certiorari, but is merely tolled while the

post-conviction motion is "pending.").

Having considered the Report and Recommendation and all objections thereto timely

filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be ADOPTED.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

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

by reference in this order.

2. The Amended Petition, Doc 6, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of May, 2005.

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:02-cv-00036-MP-AK Document 32 Filed 05/26/05 Page 2 of 2
(May 8, 1980)

#### Edward Dunay, Respondent, v Ladenburg, Thalmann & Co, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on November 28, 1979, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Helman, J., at Special Term. Respondent shall recover of appellants $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Fein, Sandler and Silverman, JJ.