alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

KENT E. HOVIND, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 3:20-cv-5484-TKW/MJF

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation (Doc. 12) and Plaintiffs’ objections (Doc. 13). The Court has 

reviewed de novo the issues raised in the objections as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b)(3). Based on that review, the Court finds that this case should be remanded to 

the magistrate judge for further consideration.

The magistrate judge (Judge Frank) recommended that this case be dismissed 

based on Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute and failure to comply with (1) the order 

entered by Judge Cannon on July 23, 2020, requiring Plaintiffs to file a second 

amended complaint by August 6, 2020; and (2) the order to show cause entered by 

Judge Frank on August 24, 2020, giving Plaintiffs until September 8, 2020, to 

explain why they failed to comply with Judge Cannon’s order. Plaintiffs argue in 

Case 3:20-cv-05484-TKW-MJF Document 15 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

their objections that (1) Judge’s Cannon’s order was unlawful and (2) they complied 

with Judge Frank’s order by filing a “third amended petition” on “2020-Sept-04.”

On the first point, putting aside the fact that Plaintiffs did not timely object to 

Judge Cannon’s order within 14 days after it was entered, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), 

the Court finds no merit in their argument that the order was unlawful. The order 

correctly pointed out several of the many deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ amended 

complaint, but rather than dismissing the complaint outright as frivolous (as Judge 

Cannon likely could have done), Plaintiffs were given an opportunity to re-plead

their claims.

On the second point, the docket includes a second amended complaint (Doc. 

14) that was apparently filed by Plaintiffs on September 4, 2020. This filing was not 

added to the docket until September 25, 2020, due to an administrative oversight in 

the Clerk’s office, so Judge Frank did not have an opportunity to consider this filing

before he issued the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the magistrate judge for further 

consideration in light of Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint.

DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of September, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05484-TKW-MJF Document 15 Filed 09/25/20 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2527 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2527

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 2, 2014

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide veterans with 
    counseling and treatment for sexual trauma that occurred during 
                        inactive duty training.

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

SECTION 1. COUNSELING AND TREATMENT FOR SEXUAL TRAUMA OCCURRING DURING 
              INACTIVE DUTY FOR TRAINING.

    Section 1720D of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``active duty or 
        active duty for training'' and inserting ``active duty, active 
        duty for training, or inactive duty training''; and
            (2) in subsection (f)--
                    (A) by striking ``this section, the'' and inserting 
                the following: ``this section:
    ``(1) The''; and
                    (B) by adding at the end the following new 
                paragraph:
    ``(2) The term `veteran', with respect to inactive duty training 
described in subsection (a)(1), also includes an individual who--
            ``(A) is not otherwise eligible for the benefits of this 
        chapter; and
            ``(B) while serving in the reserve components of the Armed 
        Forces, performed such inactive duty training but did not serve 
        on active duty.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 28, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 23

                                Consent of Independent Public Accountants

      As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference of our reports dated May 18, 2000 (except with respect to the
matters discussed in Note 17, as to which the date is June 1, 2000), included in
or incorporated by reference into Thermo TerraTech Inc.'s Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended April 1, 2000, and into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statements as follows:  Registration Statement No. 333-02269 on
Form S-2, Registration Statement No. 33-16462 on Form S-8, Registration
Statement No. 33-16464 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-16465 on
Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-2055 on Form S-3, Registration
Statement No. 33-52824 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 033-65307 on Form
S-8, Registration Statement No. 033-65283 on Form S-8, Registration Statement
No. 033-65281 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-86194 on Form S-8, and
Registration Statement No. 333-86073 on Form S-8.



                                                   Arthur Andersen LLP



Boston, Massachusetts
June 19, 2000
§ 248.6 Recipient eligibility. ( a ) *Eligibility for certification.* Individuals who are eligible to receive Federal benefits under the FMNP are those, excluding infants 4 months of age or younger, who are currently receiving benefits under WIC or who are on the waiting list to receive benefits from WIC.
( b ) *Limitations on certification.* If necessary to limit the number of recipients, State agencies may impose additional eligibility requirements, such as limiting participant certification to certain geographic areas, or to high priority WIC participants such as pregnant and breastfeeding women. States may also preclude groups of low priority persons, such as persons on the waiting list for WIC. Each State agency must specifically identify these limitations on certification in its State Plan.
( c ) *Recipient or household benefit allocation.* On a Statewide basis, State agencies shall elect to allocate and issue benefits either to recipients or households. A State agency allocating benefits on a household basis shall not issue more benefits to a household than it otherwise would if benefits were allocated to individual recipients within the household. For those State agencies issuing FMNP benefits on a household basis, each family as defined in § 246.2 of this chapter shall constitute a separate household. Foods provided, regardless of method of issuance, are intended for the sole benefit of FMNP recipients and are not intended to be shared with other non-participating household members. If a State agency issues benefits on a household basis, data concerning number and type of recipients must still be provided as required by § 248.23(b). Recipients shall receive FMNP benefits free of charge.
First Department,

April, 1980

(April 3, 1980)

#### In the Matter of Geneva Jackson, Petitioner, v New York State Division of Human Rights et al., Respondents

Order of the State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated March 6, 1979, unanimously confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sandler, Lupiano and Lynch, JJ.

2
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.
     3067 East Commercial Boulevard * Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308-4383
               Fort Lauderdale 954/771-4300 * Miami 305/944-2588
                           TELECOPY NO. 945/771-6934

                                March 14, 1997
                              Via Federal Express

Stephen J. Levy, Esquire
Katten Muchin And Zavis
525 West Monroe Street
Suite 1600
Chicago, Illinois 60661-3693

Re:  Gleneagle Apartments
     Dade County, Florida
     Our File No. 19516

Dear Mr. Levy:

Pursuant to the joint instructions received from Gloria Reyes Doreck and
yourself by telephone this afternoon, we are returning herewith the originals
of those certain documents which were being held in Escrow by our Agency
pursuant to your Escrow Trust Instructions dated January 13, 1997 and March 7,
1997 covering the above subject property.

It is my understanding that subject transaction has been cancelled.

We trust that our Agency will be of service to you and your client in the
immediate future.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Dennis F. Peters
-------------------------------
Dennis F. Peters, CLS
President

DFP/mm
Enclosures
ccs: Partners Title Company (w/o encls)
          Attn:   Gloria Reyes Doreck
     David M. Layman, Esq. (w/o encls)
     Andrew D. Rooker, Esq. (w/o encls)
     ChicagoTitle Insurance Company
          Attn:   Pat Noska
<PAGE>
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 4:03-CR-036-SPM

JERDY MILLER,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the “Motion to Alter or Amend

Judgment . . . .” (doc. 41) received July 14, 2006, in which Defendant suggests

that the Court’s previous reduction of his sentence from 180 months to 130

months does not sufficiently reflect his level of cooperation and risk of injury. 

Defendant’s statement that his reduction is “less than the ‘standard’ onethird reduction typically given to cooperating defendants” is misplaced. No

mathematical formula exists from which a sentence reduction is derived, and it is

inaccurate to compare reduction amounts from case to case. Instead, the Court

considers all factors contained in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) in

relation to the case at hand and determines the appropriate reduction for that

defendant under those circumstances.

Case 4:03-cr-00036-SPM Document 42 Filed 07/19/06 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

As previously explained in a reply letter to Defendant, the Court in this

case took into account the Rule 35(b) factors, including type and amount of

information; usefulness of the information to the Government; and risks created

by Defendant’s providing that information. A 50-month reduction is appropriate,

and Defendant has not shown compelling reasons for the Court to revisit that

ruling. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The motion to alter or amend judgment (doc. 41) is hereby denied.

2. The clerk is directed to mail Defendant a copy of the Government’s

Rule 35 motion (doc. 36).

DONE AND ORDERED this nineteenth day of July, 2006.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00036-SPM Document 42 Filed 07/19/06 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case 4:03-cr-00036-SPM Document 42 Filed 07/19/06 Page 3 of 3
Amendment
No. 4

    to
the Cooperation Agreement of December 15, 2005 (the “Agreement”)

    


    between

    


    IXI
Mobile (R&D) Ltd.

    17
Hatidhar st.

    Ra’anana
43665

    Israel

    (herafter
mentioned „IXI“)

    


    and

    


    1&1
Internet AG

    Elgendorfer
Straße 57

    56410
Montabaur

    Germany

    (hereafter
mentioned “1&1”)

    


    
      	
              1.

            	
              The
      parties hereby agree that Table I in Section 2.2. (“Product Prices and
      purchase commitments”) is amended to reflect that the charge for Advance
      Attachments is [***]
      in Q306, Q406 and Q107. It is clarified that unless otherwise agreed by
      1&1, as 1&1 is not using IXI’s push email service 1&1 will not
      be billed for this service;

            


    

    


    
      	
              2.

            	
              Section
      2.5 will be replaced in its entirety with the following
      language:

            


    

    “IXI will
provide 1&1 marketing contribution in the amount of [***]
per activated device per month, for a period of [***]
from activation, except for devices activated during Q206, in which case the
monthly contribution amount for the specific months of such quarter will be
[***].
For example, for a device activated in April 06 1&1 will receive a marketing
contribution of [***]
for the months April, May and June and [***]
for July 06 – March07; the marketing contribution will be provided against an
invoice issued by 1&1.“

    


    Except as
expressly stated otherwise herein, the Cooperation Agreement dated December 15,
2005, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.

    


    
      
        	
                Amendment
      No. 3 to the Cooperation Agreement between IXI Mobile (R&D)
      Ltd.

                and 1&1 Internet AG

              	 
      	
                Page
      1 of 2 

              


      

    


    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    

    


    As agreed
by the parties on November 30, 2006:

    


    
      
        
          
            	
                    1&1 Internet AG

                  	 
      	
                    IXI
      Mobile (R&D) Ltd.

                  
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
                    By:

                  	 
      	 
      	
                    By:

                  	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
                    Name:

                  	 
      	
                    Name:  Lihi
      Segal

                  
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
                    Title:

                  	 
      	
                    Title:  CFO

                  


          

        

      

    

    


    
      
        	
                Amendment
      No. 3 to the Cooperation Agreement between IXI Mobile (R&D)
      Ltd.

                and 1&1 Internet AG

              	 
      	
                Page
      2 of 2
#### § 201.61 Fluorescence percentages in ryegrasses.

Tolerances for 400-seed fluorescence tests shall be those set forth in the following table plus one-half the regular pure-seed tolerance determined in accordance with § 201.60. When only 200 seeds of a component in a mixture are tested, an additional 2 percent shall be added to the fluorescence tolerance.

| 100 | |
| --- | --- |
| 99 | 1.0 |
| 98 | 1.6 |
| 97 | 2.0 |
| 96 | 2.3 |
| 95 | 2.6 |
| 94 | 2.9 |
| 93 | 3.2 |
| 92 | 3.4 |
| 91 | 3.6 |
| 90 | 3.8 |
| 89 | 4.0 |
| 88 | 4.1 |
| 87 | 4.3 |
| 86 | 4.5 |
| 85 | 4.7 |
| 84 | 4.8 |
| 83 | 4.9 |
| 82 | 5.0 |
| 81 | 5.2 |
| 80 | 5.3 |
| 79 | 5.4 |
| 78 | 5.5 |
| 77 | 5.6 |
| 76 | 5.7 |
| 75 | 5.8 |
| 74 | 5.8 |
| 73 | 5.9 |
| 72 | 6.0 |
| 71 | 6.1 |
| 70 | 6.2 |
| 69 | 6.2 |
| 68 | 6.3 |
| 67 | 6.3 |
| 66 | 6.4 |
| 65 | 6.5 |
| 64 | 6.5 |
| 63 | 6.5 |
| 62 | 6.6 |
| 61 | 6.6 |
| 60 | 6.7 |
| 59 | 6.7 |
| 58 | 6.8 |
| 57 | 6.8 |
| 56 | 6.8 |
| 55 | 6.8 |
| 54 | 6.9 |
| 53 | 6.9 |
| 52 | 6.9 |
| 51 | 6.9 |
| 50 | 6.9 |
| 49 | 6.9 |
| 48 | 6.9 |
| 47 | 6.9 |
| 46 | 6.9 |
| 45 | 6.9 |
| 44 | 6.9 |
| 43 | 6.9 |
| 42 | 6.9 |
| 41 | 6.9 |
| 40 | 6.9 |
| 39 | 6.8 |
| 38 | 6.8 |
| 37 | 6.8 |
| 36 | 6.8 |
| 35 | 6.7 |
| 34 | 6.7 |
| 33 | 6.7 |
| 32 | 6.6 |
| 31 | 6.6 |
| 30 | 6.5 |
| 29 | 6.5 |
| 28 | 6.4 |
| 27 | 6.4 |
| 26 | 6.3 |
| 25 | 6.2 |
| 24 | 6.2 |
| 23 | 6.1 |
| 22 | 6.0 |
| 21 | 5.9 |
| 20 | 5.8 |
| 19 | 5.7 |
| 18 | 5.6 |
| 17 | 5.5 |
| 16 | 5.4 |
| 15 | 5.3 |
| 14 | 5.2 |
| 13 | 5.0 |
| 12 | 4.9 |
| 11 | 4.7 |
| 10 | 4.6 |
| 9 | 4.4 |
| 8 | 4.2 |
| 7 | 4.0 |
| 6 | 3.7 |
| 5 | 3.5 |
| 4 | 3.2 |
| 3 | 2.8 |
| 2 | 2.4 |
| 1 | 1.8 |
| 0 | 1.0 |

Fluorescence Tolerance, Based on Test Fluorescence (TFL)

[32 FR 12781, Sept. 6, 1967, as amended at 59 FR 64516, Dec. 14, 1994; 85 FR 40583, July 7, 2020]
December 18, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF A.L., M.L., AND J.Y.R., CHILDREN

NO. 14-12-00656-CV

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment terminating parental rights signed on 

July 27, 2012, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record 

and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below 

AFFIRMED.

We order the decision certified below for observance.

We further order the mandate be issued immediately.
#### In the Matter of Stanley Winter, Respondent, v. John L. Barry, as Commissioner of Police of the Suffolk County Police Department, Appellant.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the determination of the Police Commissioner of Suffolk County, dated September 24, 1965, the Commissioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated May 17, 1966, which (a) annulled the action of the Commissioner on the two charges of which he found petitioner guilty (Nos. 1 aúd 4); (b) sustained the finding of petitioner’s guilt as to charge No. 1; (c) reversed the finding of guilt with respect to charge No. 4; (d) set aside the penalty which the Commissioner had imposed, that of demotion of petitioner from sergeant to patrolman and, instead, imposed a fine of the difference between his salary as a sergeant and that *as*a patrolman from September 24, 1965 to *February*10,1966 (when the proceeding was submitted to Special Term); and (e) directed petitioner’s reinstatement to the position and rank of sergeant as of September 24, 1965, with full retroactive pay, less said fine. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by (a) striking out the first three ordering paragraphs; and (b) adding, in lieu thereof, a paragraph confirming the Commissioner’s dismissal of charges Nos. 2 and 3 and his determination of guilt on charges Nos. 1 and 4, for violation of articles 6.13 and 6.26 of the Rules and Regulations of the Suffolk County Police Department. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the. evidence sustains the finding of the Police Commissioner that on November 26, 1964 petitioner was guilty of “ Receiving and agreeing to receive a valuable piece of property for his own use without reporting same to Commissioner” (charge *No. 1)*and “Failure to safeguard [the] crime scene and protect evidence” (charge No. 4). However, under all the circumstances, we believe that the punishment imposed by the Commissioner was excessive and that the modification thereof by the Special Term was proper. Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur; Beldoek, P. J., concurs in the confirmation of the Commissioner’s findings of guilt of charges Nos. 1 and 4 and dismissal of charges Nos. 2 and 3, but dissents from the affirmance of Special Term’s modification of the punishment and votes to confirm the penalty of demotion from sergeant to patrolman, with the following memo*851randum: In my opinion, the penalty of demotion is not so shockingly disproportionate as to justify interfering with appellant’s judgment as a Police Commissioner, charged with the responsibility of maintaining proper standards of morale and discipline, which are major predicates for his effectiveness, as well as that of the Police Department (cf. *Matter of Stolz*v. *Board of*Regents, 4 A D 2d 361).
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.
 Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER11-2079-000]
 Duke Energy Fayette II, LLC
Docket No. ER11-2079-000.
 This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Duke Energy Fayette II, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is December 7, 2010. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at 
                    *http://www.ferc.gov.*
                     To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
                    *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*
                     or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2010-29840 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Second Department,

February, 19C7

(February 2, 1967)

#### In the Matter of Carl I. Cohen, Applicant.

Application (pursuant to Judiciary Law, § 593) by a defendant in a pending criminal action for permission to examine, inspect, and copy all answers, data and information obtained by the County Clerk of Kings County in interviewing, examining and investigating members on the 1960 list of Grand Jurors for Kings County. Upon the written consent of the District Attorney of Kings County, dated January 30, 1967, motion granted with respect to members on such lists for the years 1958 to 1962 inclusive. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.