alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

Case No. 4:20-cv-00234-WS-MAF

DELROY A. CHAMBERS, JR., 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

H2 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC,

doing business as HOLLAWAY 

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

Defendant. 

_____________________________________/

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff, Delroy A. Chambers, Jr., hereby gives notice to the Court that he 

and Defendant have settled this matter. Plaintiff will file appropriate dismissal 

papers in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. 

Respectfully submitted,

Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 43994

josh@sjlawcollective.com

Shawn A. Heller, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 46346

shawn@sjlawcollective.com

Case 4:20-cv-00234-WS-MAF Document 11 Filed 07/09/20 Page 1 of 2
2

Social Justice Law Collective, PL

974 Howard Avenue

Dunedin, FL 34698

(202) 709-5744

(866) 893-0416 (Fax)

Attorneys for the Plaintiff

By: s/ Joshua A. Glickman .

Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.

.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing was electronically filed with the 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, on this 9th day of July 2020, which 

will send a notice of electronic filing to all attorneys of record.

By: s/ Joshua A. Glickman .

Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.

Case 4:20-cv-00234-WS-MAF Document 11 Filed 07/09/20 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of the Claim of George Michaels, Respondent, v Village of Johnson City et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed March 23, 1979. Substantial evidence supports the finding that claimant’s disability is compensable as the result of a work-related accident. In attacking thé board’s determination, the self-insured employer criticizes the testimony of claimant’s expert medical witness and maintains that claimant did not sustain a myocardial infarction following strenuous efforts while fighting a fire on November 29,1977. While the validity of the opinion given by that witness was questioned on cross-examination, he clearly stated the reasons for his view and it was for the board to decide whether it should be accepted. The opinion he expressed was not speculative (cf. *Matter of Beltran v Allied Maintenance Corp.,*45 AD2d 795) and the board was free to prefer it over the contrary medical evidence developed by the employer *(Matter of Currie v Town of Davenport,*37 NY2d 472). Decision affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents filing briefs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Casey, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000795196
<NAME> JOHN HANCOCK REALTY INCOME FUND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       8,447,025
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  183,696
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,586,062
<PP&E>                                      31,605,222
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,165,026
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,605,444
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          342,758
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,262,686
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,605,444
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,194,290
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  491,424
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                83,939
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,551,706
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,551,706
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,551,706
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    17.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    17.42
        

</TABLE>
§ 331.13 Restricted experiments. ( a ) An individual or entity may not conduct or possess products resulting from the following experiments unless approved by and conducted in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the Administrator: ( 1 ) Experiments that involve the deliberate transfer of, or selection for, a drug or chemical resistance trait to select agents that are not known to acquire the trait naturally, if such acquisition could compromise the control of disease agents in humans, veterinary medicine, or agriculture.
( 2 ) Experiments involving the deliberate formation of synthetic or recombinant nucleic acids containing genes for the biosynthesis of select toxins lethal for vertebrates at an LD[50]<100 ng/kg body weight.
( b ) The Administrator may revoke approval to conduct any of the experiments in paragraph (a) of this section, or revoke or suspend a certificate of registration, if the individual or entity fails to comply with the requirements of this part.
( c ) To apply for approval to conduct any of the experiments in paragraph (a) of this section, an individual or entity must submit a written request and supporting scientific information to the Administrator. A written decision granting or denying the request will be issued.
[70 FR 13278, Mar. 18, 2005, as amended at 77 FR 61076, Oct. 5, 2012; 79 FR 26830, May 12, 2014]
* 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. 95-20408 Conference Calendar

__________________ GLENN ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus GLADYS M. OAKLEY, Judge, Defendant-Appellee, and GEORGIA ANDERSON, Defendant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-95-720
- - - - - - - - - - December 20, 1995 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Glenn Franklin Anderson appeals from the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction in which he sought to "[e]njoin [p]rocess in Cause No. 92L-866 before the County Court at Law Austin County Texas." The district court did not abuseNo. 95-20408 -2- its discretion in denying Anderson's motion for a preliminary injunction. Anderson failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits because the district court lacked federal jurisdiction. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 475 (1983). All pending motions are DENIED. We caution Anderson that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Anderson is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this court. APPEAL DISMISSED.
# L_2020334EN.01000101.xml

| 13.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 334/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 334/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/1469

of 6 October 2020

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Malostonska kamenica’ (PDO))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia’s application to register the name ‘Malostonska kamenica’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia’s application to register the name ‘Malostonska kamenica’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Malostonska kamenica’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Malostonska kamenica’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Malostonska kamenica’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.7. – Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans and products derived therefrom, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 6 October 2020.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 204, 18.6.2020, p. 29.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
```

[108th Congress Public Law 457]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ457.108]

[[Page 118 STAT. 3637]]

Public Law 108-457
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To amend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 to 
reauthorize for 2 additional years the public school and private school 
tuition  assistance programs established under the Act. 
 <<NOTE: Dec. 17, 2004 -  [H.R. 4012]>> 

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

SECTION 1. 5-YEAR REAUTHORIZATION OF TUITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

    (a) Public School Program.--Section 3(i) of the District of Columbia 
College Access Act of 1999 (sec. 38--2702(i), D.C. Official Code) is 
amended by striking ``each of the five succeeding fiscal years'' and 
inserting ``each of the 7 succeeding fiscal years''.
    (b) Private School Program.--Section 5(f) of such Act (sec. 38--
2704(f), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ``each of the five 
succeeding fiscal years'' and inserting ``each of the 7 succeeding 
fiscal years''.

    Approved December 17, 2004.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4012 (S. 2347):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108-527 (Comm. on Government Reform).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 108-349 accompanying S. 2347 (Comm. on Governmental 
Affairs).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):
            July 14, considered and passed House.
            Nov. 24, considered and passed Senate, amended.
            Dec. 6, House concurred in Senate amendments.

                                  <all>

```
#### Steven Drake, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs, for the reasons stated at Court of Claims (97 Mise 2d 1015), Lowery, J. (Appeal from *1017judgment of Court of Claims—dismiss claim.) Present—Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Moule, JJ.
P.O. BOX 1059 • 505 WEST C • McCook, NE 69001·1059 • PHONE (308) 345-2022 • FAX (308) 345-1461 

March 3, 2014 

Kevin Schlemmer 

Chief, Essential Air Service & Domestic Analysis Division 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: McCook Ben Nelson Regional Airport 

Preferred Air Carrier and Priority 

Preference of Air Service Routes 

Dear Mr. Schlemmer: 

By unanimous vote, the McCook City Council took the following action in response to your e-mail 

dated February 3, 2014 at the February 17, 2014 City Council Meeting: 

1. Recommend to the Department of Transportation to accept the proposal from Great 

Lakes Aviation to continue 12 nonstop round trips per week to Denver International 

Airport. 

The City Council also wanted to forward to you the following concerns that have been raised 

concerning Great Lakes Aviation: 

-With the number of cancelled flights, there will need to be a substantial amount of 

additional marketing by Great Lakes in order to build confidence once again in their 

operation. 

-Great Lakes has in place an aggressive training program for pilots. This commitment will 

need to be followed thru with in order to increase the number of pilots available so that 

they can provide consistent and reliable service to the markets that they serve. 

Thank you for this opportunity to submit this information for your consideration. 

Cordially, 

1/t~ Kyle Potthoff 

Public Works Director/Asst. Airport Manager 

City of McCook
Docket No: FAA-2015-5809 Dir ID: 2015-NM-055-AD
# L_2020310EN.01000101.xml

| 24.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 310/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 310/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/1321

of 17 September 2020

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Aydın Kestanesi’ (PDO))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Turkey’s application to register the name ‘Aydın Kestanesi’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Turkey’s application to register the name ‘Aydın Kestanesi’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Aydın Kestanesi’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Aydın Kestanesi’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Aydın Kestanesi’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. – Fruit, vegetables and cereals fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 17 September 2020.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 185, 4.6.2020, p. 16.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

Travis Kell

Civil Action No. 7:20-cv-87668-MCR-GRJ

Case No. 3:19md2885

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

NOTICE OF DESIGNATED FORUM

Plaintiff, Travis Kell, by and through counsel of record, files this Notice

of Designated Forum, and would show the Court that venue would be proper 

in the United States District Court, Texas Western District - San Antonio Division

absent direct filing on the administrative docket. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend

this designation of proper venue and forum, once case specific fact and

expert discovery is complete.

Plaintiff therefore requests that the Court take notice of this designation of

forum.

Dated: 9/27/2021 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Sean Patrick Tracey

Sean Patrick Tracey (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Texas Bar No. 20176500

Shawn P. Fox (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Texas Bar No. 24040926

TRACEY FOX KING & WALTERS

440 Louisiana St., Suite 1901

Case 7:20-cv-87668-MCR-GRJ Document 4 Filed 09/30/21 Page 1 of 2
Houston, Texas 77002

713-495-2333 Tel.

866-709-2333 Facsimile

stracey@traceylawfirm.com

sfox@traceylawfirm.com

3M@traceylawfirm.com

/s/ Dana Lizik

Dana Lizik (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Texas State Bar No. 24098007

Basil E. Adham 

Texas State Bar No. 24081742

JOHNSON LAW GROUP

2925 Richmond Avenue, Suite 1700

Houston, Texas 77098

(713) 626-9336

(713) 583-9460 (facsimile)

dlizik@johnsonlawgroup.com

Earplugs@johnsonlawgroup.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that on this 27th day of September 2021, a true and

correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court

and served using the CM/ECF system.

/s/ Sean P. Tracey

Sean Patrick Tracey

/s/ Dana Lizik

Dana Lizik

2

Case 7:20-cv-87668-MCR-GRJ Document 4 Filed 09/30/21 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

WILTON AMOS ROSS,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:90-cv-40141-MP-WCS

RICHARD L. DUGGER,

Respondent.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 178, Report and Recommendations of the

Magistrate Judge, recommending that Petitioner’s Motion for Relief of Judgment, Doc. 177, be

dismissed as a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Magistrate Judge filed

the Report and Recommendation on Tuesday, March 14, 2006. The parties have been furnished

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file

objections. Plaintiff has filed objections to the Magistrate's report, Doc. 179. 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.

In his objections, the Petitioner contends that this court should entertain this second 

§ 2254 petition. However, as the Magistrate correctly points out, Rule 9 of 28 U.S.C. § 2254

provides that "[b]efore presenting a second or successive petition, the petitioner must obtain an

order from the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition

as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) and (4)." Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) states

that "[b]efore a second or successive application . . . is filed in the district court, the applicant

shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to

Case 4:90-cv-40141-MP-WCS Document 180 Filed 05/05/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:90-cv-40141-MP-WCS

consider the application." Petitioner has failed to obtain authorization from the court of appeals

prior to filing this motion. Therefore, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider the

Petitioner's motion. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and

incorporated herein.

2. This action is DISMISSED, and the clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of May, 2006

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 4:90-cv-40141-MP-WCS Document 180 Filed 05/05/06 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 4:92cr4013-WS

NORRIS MOTHERSILL, 4:06cv61-WS

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc.

1711) docketed July 12, 2006. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendant's

request to preserve his Booker claim (doc. 1698) be denied. The defendant has filed

objections (doc. 1718) to the report and recommendation.

Upon review of the record in light of the defendant’s objections, the court has

determined that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 1718) is adopted

and incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

Case 4:92-cr-04013-WS-CAS Document 1719 Filed 08/23/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 92cr4013-WS

2. The defendant’s request to preserve his Booker claim, or alternatively motion

to vacate, (doc. 1698) is DENIED. 

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and shall close Case No. 

4:06cv61-WS.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of August , 2006.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:92-cr-04013-WS-CAS Document 1719 Filed 08/23/06 Page 2 of 2
98-1476.

#### State v. Jenkins.

Stark App. No. 1998CA0082. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Moyer, C. J., and Pfeifer, J., dissent.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2466 

To amend title 18, United States Code to provide for strengthened protections 

against theft of trade secrets, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 20, 2013 

Ms. LOFGREN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code to provide for 

strengthened protections against theft of trade secrets, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Private Right of Action 

5 Against Theft of Trade Secrets Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STRENGTHENING PROTOOECOOTION AGAINST 

7 THEFT OF TRADE SECRETS. 

8 Section 1832 of title 18, United States Code, is 

9 amended by inserting after subsection (b) the following: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2466 IH

1 ‘‘(c) Any person who suffers injury by reason of a 

2 violation of this section may maintain a civil action against 

3 the violator to obtain appropriate compensatory damages 

4 and injunctive relief or other equitable relief. No action 

5 may be brought under this subsection unless such action 

6 is begun within 2 years of the date of the act complained 

7 of or the date of the discovery of the damage. 

8 ‘‘(d) For purposes of this section, the term ‘without 

9 authorization’ shall not mean independent derivation or 

10 working backwards from a lawfully obtained known prod11 uct or service to divine the process which aided its develop12 ment or manufacture.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS