alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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. 1381, Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s

Order, Doc. 1380. Defendant asserts that the Court’s Order failed to comply with the Eleventh

Circuit’s mandate to address the merits of Defendant’s motions. Defendant is incorrect. The

Court’s Order addressed the merits of Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Judgment, Doc. 1323,

and Motion for Reconsideration, Doc. 1324.

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the Court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

and remanded for determination of the merits of these motions. The Eleventh Circuit expressed

no opinion whatsoever as to the procedural or substantive merit of the motions. On remand, this

Court upheld it’s previous conclusion that Defendant’s Motion for Return of Property, Doc. 490,

was without merit. Furthermore the Court concluded that Defendant’s Motion for

Reconsideration, Doc. 1324, was untimely.

As stated in the Court’s previous Order, Doc. 1380, no further motions related to these

issues will be considered. Accordingly, it is hereby
Page 2 of 2

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Motion for Reconsideration, Doc. 1381, is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of February, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 1:88-cr-01007-MP -AK
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNASA/DOD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Report 8: Summary report to phase 3 faculty and student respondentsPhase 3 of a four part study was undertaken to investigate the use of scientific and technical information (STI) in the academic aerospace community. Three questionnaires that were sent to three groups (i.e., faculty, librarians, and students) in the academic aerospace community were used. Specific attention was paid to the types of STI used and the methods in which academic users acquired STI. The focus is on the responses of two of the three groups: faculty in aerospace departments and students enrolled in the USRA-funded capstone design courses. Respondents in both groups relied heavily upon informal sources of information, although students were less inclined to regard their personal collections of STI as important. Both groups relied upon most formal sources of STI about the same, but students reported more difficulty in using the formal resources.Document ID19910015629Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsPinelli, Thomas E.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Kennedy, John M.*(Indiana Univ. Bloomington, United States)*White, Terry F.*(Indiana Univ. Bloomington., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1991Subject CategoryDocumentation And Information ScienceReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:104085AD-A252067NASA-TM-104085Accession Number91N24943Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-90-00Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910015629.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEY BRAND ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. DANCAP PRODUCTIONS, INC., an Ontario corporation, Defendant - Appellant. No. 08-56871 D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02416-AHM-E
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 4, 2010 Pasadena, California Before: RYMER, WARDLAW and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Dancap Productions, Inc. (“Dancap”) appeals the district court’s order granting Key Brand Entertainment, In c.’s (“Key Brand”) petition to compel 

# FILED
MAR 10 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 arbitration. The district court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and we have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. The district court did not err in concluding that the arbitration provision in the Additional Rights Agreement enco mpasses Key Brand’s request for an interpretation of the parties’ agreements. See Balen v. Holland Am. Line Inc ., 583 F.3d 647, 652 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard of revi ew). The parties’ dispute as to the proper interpretation of the agreements falls squarely within the arbitration provision, which covers of “[a]ny dispute . . . arising out of or relating to” the agreement, “including, but not limited to, the interpretation . . . thereof.” Because the arbitration provision expressly covers di sputes as to the interpretation of the agreement, the provision’s exclusion of “claims for injunctive or equitable relief” does not apply. Therefore, the district court acted properly in ordering arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act. See 9 U.S.C. § 4; Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc ., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130–31 (9th Cir. 2000). AFFIRMED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1948

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1948 appear at 80 FR 9888, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1948.85 [Reserved]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Council on Disability (ncd)

###### Sunshine Act Meetings

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Quigley, Director of Communications, NCD, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004; 202-272-2004 (voice), 202-272-2074 TTY; 202-272-2022 Fax.

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         on November 12, 2010, in FR Doc. 2010-28647, on page 69473, correct Matters to be Considered for December 3 to read:                    

December 3

8:30 a.m.-9:30 a.m. Speaker on Fiscal/Deficit Commission

9:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m. Continuation of NCD Open Meeting

11:30 a.m. Adjournment

Dated: November 17, 2010.

Aaron Bishop,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 2010-29378 Filed 11-17-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6820-MA-P
§ 3201.6 Providing product information to Federal agencies. ( a ) *Informational Web site.* An informational USDA Web site implementing section 9002 of FSRIA can be found at: *http://www.biopreferred.gov .* USDA will maintain a voluntary Web-based information site for manufacturers and vendors of qualified biobased products and Federal agencies to exchange information, as described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. ( 1 ) *Product information.* The Web site will, as determined to be necessary by the Secretary based on the availability of data, provide information as to the availability, price, biobased content, performance and environmental and public health benefits of the designated product categories and designated intermediate ingredient or feedstock categories. USDA encourages manufacturers and vendors to provide product and business contact information for designated categories. Instructions for posting information are found on the Web site itself. USDA also encourages Federal agencies to utilize this Web site to obtain current information on designated categories, contact information on manufacturers and vendors, and access to information on product characteristics relevant to procurement decisions. In addition to any information provided on the Web site, manufacturers and vendors are expected to provide relevant information to Federal agencies, subject to the limitations specified in § 3201.8(a), with respect to product characteristics, including verification of such characteristics if requested.
( 2 ) *National Testing Center Registry.* The Web site will include an electronic listing of recognized industry standard testing organizations that will serve biobased product manufacturers such as ASTM International, Society of Automotive Engineers, and the American Petroleum Institute. USDA encourages stakeholders to submit information on other possible testing resources to the BioPreferred program for inclusion.
( b ) *Advertising, labeling and marketing claims.* Manufacturers and vendors are reminded that their advertising, labeling, and other marketing claims, including claims regarding health and environmental benefits of the product, must conform to the Federal Trade Commission “Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims,” 16 CFR part 260 (*see: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/16cfr260_08.html*). For further requirements, click on the link to the “Guidelines for Marketing the BioPreferred Program.”
[70 FR 1809, Jan. 11, 2005, as amended at 76 FR 6322, Feb. 4, 2011; 79 FR 44656, Aug. 1, 2014; 80 FR 34030, June 15, 2015]
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER BROWN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-2764 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed June 29, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; J. Rogers Padgett, Senior Judge. Rachael E. Reese of O'Brien Hatfield, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Johnny T. Salgado, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
VILLANTI, KHOUZAM, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 32.1

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

I, Randolph Gress,
certify that:

1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (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: May 8, 2009

| |  |  |  |                    |  |                                                                                  
| |  |  |  | ------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | 
| |  |  |  | /s/ RANDOLPH GRESS
| |  |  |  |                    |  | Randolph Gress Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive 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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MATHEW SELOVER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv4698-TKW-HTC

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD

OF COMMISSIONERS and

RAYME EDLER,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME

Upon due consideration of the parties’ joint motion for extension of time to 

file report of Rule 26(f) conference (Doc. 22), it is

ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and the parties shall have until 

April 29, 2020, to file the report of their Rule 26(f) conference.

DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of April, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 23 Filed 04/27/20 Page 1 of 1
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 07a0054n.06

Filed: January 23, 2007

No. 05-5973

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

BEATY CHEVROLET COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

HYB, INC.; HARPER VEHICLES, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE EASTERN

DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

M E M O R A N D U M

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: MARTIN, NORRIS, AND GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Beaty Chevrolet Company appeals from a grant of summary judgment to

defendant Norfolk Southern Railway Company. Jurisdiction is grounded upon diversity of

citizenship. Plaintiff contended that a chemical spill from defendant’s railroad equipment

approximately five miles distant damaged its property. However, as the district court properly noted,

plaintiff’s evidence at best pointed to the possibility that defendant’s conduct caused the damage,

and that was insufficient to prove causation under Tennessee law. 

Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on

appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we are not persuaded that the district court

erred in granting summary judgment to defendant. Because the reasoning which supports judgment

for defendant has been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by
No. 05-5973

Beaty Chevrolet Co. V. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

- 2 -

this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. 

The district court is AFFIRMED upon the reasoning employed by that court in its

Memorandum Opinion filed on May 18, 2005.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T
C AR L OS GU S T AV O C L AR OS RODRI GU EZ , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 74858 A ge nc yN o. A 072- 528- 564 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d J anuary10, 2011 ** B efo re: B E E Z E R , T A L L M A N , an dC A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C ar l os G ust avo C l ar os R od ri gu ez , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f E l S al vado r, pet i t i on s f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order d is m is s in g h is ap p e a l f

r o m an im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s ( “I J ” ) d e c is io n d e n y in g h is appl i cat i on s f

or spec i alrul e c ance l l at i on of re m ov alun der the N i cara gu an 

# FI LED JAN 18 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 74858 2 A dj us tm e ntand C e ntr a l A m e r i c an R e l i e f A c t( “N A C A R A ” ) , and f ornon- l aw f

ul p erm an en tresi d en tcan cel l at i o n o f rem o v al . O u r j u ri sd i ct i o n i s g o v ern edb y 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o du e p r o c e s s c la im s . V asqu ez -Zavala v. A s h c r o ft , 32 4 F . 3d 11 05 , 11 07 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). W e di sm i ss i n p artand d eny i n p art th e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the a ge nc y ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tC l ar os R od ri gu ez di d n otes t abl i sh el i gi bi l i ty f or N A C A R A re l i ef

, as thatfi nd i ng i s bas ed o n d is p u te df

a c ts . See I lle g a l I m m ig r a tio n R e f o rm an dI m m ig r an t R e s p o n s ib ility A c t o f 1 9 9 6 , § 3 0 9 ( c ) ( 5 ) ( C ) ( ii) ; cf
. B a rri o s v. H

o lder, 58 1 F . 3d 84 9, 85 7 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). W e a l s o l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the a ge nc y ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tC l ar os R odr i gue z f

a i l e d t o s how e xc e pt i ona l and e xtr e m e l yunus ua l har ds hi p t o a q u a lif y in g r e la tiv e . See M

art i nez-R osas v. G on zales , 42 4 F . 3d 92 6, 93 0 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). C l ar os R odr i gue z ’ s c ont e nt i ons tha tthe I Jdi s r e gar de d hi s e vi de nc e of har ds hi p and di d notc ons i de rthe e vi de nc e i n the a ggr e ga t e ar e nots upport e d by th e r e c o r dan dd o n o t a m o u n t to c o lo r ab le c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s . See M ar t i nez - R os as , 424 F . 3d a t930. P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D IS M IS S E D i n p art; D E N IE D i n p art.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

FRANCISCO JOSE BACA,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 3:20cv5357-MCR-HTC

SECRETARY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

/

ORDER

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

and Recommendation dated January 19, 2022 (ECF No. 74). The parties have been 

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an 

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 

636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections 

thereto timely filed, 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.

Case 3:20-cv-05357-MCR-HTC Document 84 Filed 06/10/22 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5357-MCR-HTC

(2)The clerk of the court for the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of Florida is directed to enter the following judgment: “The 

amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, ECF Doc. 8, is DENIED in its 

entirety.” 

(3)A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

(4)Petitioner’s Motion of Notice of Exhausted Claims (ECF No. 76) and 

Motion to Rule and Issue Final Order (ECF No. 79) are denied as moot.

(5)The clerk is directed to close the file for this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of June 2022.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05357-MCR-HTC Document 84 Filed 06/10/22 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2






CERTIFICATION




PURSUANT
TO




SECTION
1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE




I, Alicia Borst Derrah, the Vice
President, Accounting Officer and principal financial officer of Man Investments
(USA) Corp., the Managing Member of Man-AHL 130, LLC (“Man-AHL 130”), certify
that (i) the Quarterly Report of Man-AHL 130 on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained
in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Man-AHL 130.








Date:  November
16, 2009





/s/ Alicia Borst
Derrah


Alicia Borst Derrah


Director,
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
118 STAT. 1216 PUBLIC LAW 108–322—OCT. 5, 2004

Public Law 108–322

108th Congress

Joint Resolution

Commemorating the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian.

Whereas the National Museum of the American Indian Act (20

U.S.C. 808 et seq.) established within the Smithsonian Institution

the National Museum of the American Indian and authorized

the construction of a facility to house the National Museum

of the American Indian on the National Mall in the District

of Columbia;

Whereas the National Museum of the American Indian officially

opens on September 21, 2004; and

Whereas the National Museum of the American Indian will be

the only national museum devoted exclusively to the history

and art of cultures indigenous to the Americas, and will give

all Americans the opportunity to learn of the cultural legacy,

historic grandeur, and contemporary culture of Native Americans:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. NATIONAL MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN.

Congress—

(1) recognizes the important and unique contribution of

Native Americans to the cultural legacy of the United States,

both in the past and currently;

(2) honors the cultural achievements of all Native Americans;

(3) celebrates the official opening of the National Museum

of the American Indian; and

Oct. 5, 2004

[S.J. Res. 41]

PUBLIC LAW 108–322—OCT. 5, 2004 118 STAT. 1217

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S.J. Res. 41:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

July 22, considered and passed Senate.

Sept. 21, considered and passed House.

Æ

(4) requests the President to issue a proclamation encouraging all Americans to take advantage of the resources of

the National Museum of the American Indian to learn about

the history and culture of Native Americans.

Approved October 5, 2004.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 6, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50848 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LUIS GUEVARA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CR-204-ALL

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Luis GuevaraGarcia raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.