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

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

TERRENCE PAUL ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:03-cv-00025-MP-MD

ROBERT G BOYD,

MARK A HENRY,

KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER,

Defendants.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 71, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, recommending that the defendant's special report, Doc. 48, be construed 

as a motion for summary judgment, that summary judgment be denied, and this case be referred

to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. The defendants filed objections, doc. 72, to

which the plaintiff responded, doc. 73. 

Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Marianna at the time

of the events giving rise to this complaint. On April 3, 2002, Warden Mark Henry implemented

a policy prohibiting inmates from wearing knit caps and jackets until winter time. (Doc. 48, exh.

2). Plaintiff maintains that he caught a cold on April 4 when he was outdoors without a cap or

jacket in temperatures below 50 degrees. Therefore, when temperatures were in the low 40's the

following day, plaintiff went to Captain Boyd to discuss his concerns. According to plaintiff, he

“politely asked the captain if [he] may wear warm gears because the time was cold and [he] had,

in fact, caught a cold.” (Doc. 18, exh. A). Specifically, plaintiff asked to wear the knit cap he

had purchased at the commissary. The captain allegedly responded “It’s summer . . . you don’t

Case 5:03-cv-00025-MP-MD Document 78 Filed 01/04/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 5:03-cv-00025-MP-MD

need winter gears . . . you don’t see me wearing any. . .” and told plaintiff to return to the unit.

As plaintiff turned to leave, he saw a corrections officer with both his knit cap and jacket on. He

claims that he pointed this out to the captain who then told the officers nearby to “cuff him.” 

The defendants claim that the plaintiff became so combative and disruptive that other prisoners

began to take notice and it became necessary to restrain the plaintiff.

In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge concludes that because of the

divergent testimony of the two sides, summary judgment was inappropriate. The defendants

object, however, and raise arguments, such as the potential application of qualified immunity,

that appear not to have been included in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is rejected and this matter remanded to

the Magistrate Judge to consider the issues raised in the defendants' objections.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of January, 2006

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-00025-MP-MD Document 78 Filed 01/04/06 Page 2 of 2
# CI2021244EN.01000301.xml

| 22.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 244/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 244/3

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 18 June 2021

appointing a member of the Scientific and Technical Committee

(2021/C 244 I/02)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 134 (2) thereof,

After consulting the European Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | By means of its Decision of 6 November 2018 (1), the Council appointed the members of the Scientific and Technical Committee (’the Committee’) for the period from 6 November 2018 to 6 November 2023. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By means of its Decision of 6 November 2018 (1), the Council appointed the members of the Scientific and Technical Committee (’the Committee’) for the period from 6 November 2018 to 6 November 2023.

| (2) | Following the decease of Mr Roland ZEYEN, a seat on the Committee has become vacant. A new member should therefore be appointed for the remainder of Mr Roland ZEYEN’s term of office, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Following the decease of Mr Roland ZEYEN, a seat on the Committee has become vacant. A new member should therefore be appointed for the remainder of Mr Roland ZEYEN’s term of office,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Mr Michel FEIDER is hereby appointed member of the Scientific and Technical Committee until 6 November 2023.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 18 June 2021.

For the Council

The President

J. LEÄO

---

(1)  Council Decision of 6 November 2018 appointing the members of the Scientific and Technical Committee (OJ C 403, 9.11.2018, p. 2).

1

---
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Robert J. Krakauer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MagnaChip Semiconductor LLC;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 9, 2007



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/ Robert J. Krakauer               
|Robert J. Krakauer                   
|President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2
 
 Statement of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350
 
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, as the Principal financial officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Jeffrey B. ReedyJeffrey B. ReedyChief Financial OfficerAugust 13, 2010






30
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-70,827]

                    By application dated December 22, 2009, the United Steel Workers requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on November 5, 2009. The Notice of Determination will soon be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the finding that imports of steel forgings did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred.

In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided additional information regarding customers of the subject firm and imports of steel forgings and like or directly competitive products.

                    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the                           ( print page 7031)                        eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.                

## Conclusion

After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of January 2010.

Del Min Amy Chen,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2010-3015 Filed 2-12-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0653. CEDRIC KIMBROUGH v. THE STATE.

Cedric Kimbrough was convicted for selling cocaine and cocaine trafficking,

and his conviction was affirmed on appeal. SeeKimbrough v. State, 215 Ga. App. 303

(450 SE2d 457) (1994). Kimbrough subsequently filed a motion to “vacate/correct

void sentence,” which the trial court denied. Kimbrough appealed the ruling, and we

vacated the ruling and remanded to the trial court to dismiss rather than deny the

motion. See Kimbrough v. State, 325 Ga. App. 519 (754 SE2d 109) (2014).

Following remittitur, the trial court entered an order dismissing the motion, and

Kimbrough filed this appeal.

1

Kimbrough has already had one appeal in this Court in which he challenged the

legality of his sentence. He is not entitled to another. “It is axiomatic that the same

issue cannot be relitigated ad infinitum. The same is true of appeals of the same issue

on the same grounds.” Echols v. State, 243 Ga. App. 775, 776 (534 SE2d 464)

(2000); see also Jordan v. State, 253 Ga. App. 510, 511 (2) (559 SE2d 528) (2002).

Our ruling in the prior appeal is res judicata. See Hook v. Bergen, 286 Ga. App. 258,

261 (1) (649 SE2d 313) (2007). Thus, Kimbrough is estopped from seeking further

judicial review on this issue. See id.; see also Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326, 328

(713 SE2d 438) (2011) (law of the case rule bars successive void sentence appeals).

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

1 Kimbrough filed his appeal in the SupremeCourt, which transferred thematter

to this Court.

December 23, 2015
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office,Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

12/23/2015
§ 3560.553 Loan and grant purposes. ( a ) In addition to the purposes stated in § 3560.53, off-farm labor housing loan and grant funds may be used to provide facilities for seasonal or temporary residential use with appropriate furnishings and equipment. A temporary residence is a dwelling which is used for occupancy, usually for a short period of time, but is not the legal domicile for the occupant.
( b ) The Agency may award technical assistance grants to eligible private and public nonprofit agencies. These grant recipients will, in turn, assist other organizations to obtain loans and grants for the construction of farm labor housing.
( c ) Technical assistance services may not be used to reimburse a nonprofit or public body applicant for technical services provided by a nonprofit organization, with housing and/or community development experience, to assist the nonprofit applicant entity in the development and packaging of its loan/grant docket and project. In addition, technical assistance will not be funded by the Agency when an identity of interest exists between the technical assistance provider and the loan or grant applicant.
# L_2021294EN.01005401.xml

| 17.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 294/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 294/54

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2021/1239 of 29 July 2021 amending Regulations (EU) 2019/1919, (EU) 2021/91 and (EU) 2021/92 as regards certain fishing opportunities for 2021 in Union and non-Union waters

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 276 of 31 July 2021
  )

On page 5, recital 24, first sentence:

for:

| ‘(24) | The catch limits provided for in Regulations (EU) 2019/1919 and (EU) 2021/91 apply as from 1 January 2021. (...)’, |
| --- | --- |

‘(24)

The catch limits provided for in Regulations (EU) 2019/1919 and (EU) 2021/91 apply as from 1 January 2021. (...)’,

read:

| ‘(24) | The catch limits provided for in Regulations (EU) 2021/91 and (EU) 2021/92 apply as from 1 January 2021. (...)’. |
| --- | --- |

‘(24)

The catch limits provided for in Regulations (EU) 2021/91 and (EU) 2021/92 apply as from 1 January 2021. (...)’.

---
32.000 Scope of part.       This part prescribes policies and procedures for contract financing and other payment matters. This part addresses-                                       (a) Payment methods, including partial payments and progress payments based on percentage or stage of completion;                                          (b) Loan guarantees, advance payments, and progress payments based on costs;                                          (c) Administration of debts to the Government arising out of contracts;                                          (d) Contract funding, including the use of contract clauses limiting costs or funds;                                          (e) Assignment of claims to aid in private financing;                                          (f) Selected payment clauses;                                          (g) Financing of purchases of commercial products and commercial services;                                          (h) Performance-based payments; and                                          (i) Electronic funds transfer payments.    **Parent topic:** Part 32 - Contract Financing
#### § 4284.4 Appeals.

Any appealable adverse decision made by the Agency may be appealed in accordance with USDA appeal regulations found at 7 CFR part 11 and subpart B of part 1900. If the Agency makes a determination that a decision is not appealable, a participant may request that it be reviewed by the Director of the National Appeals Division.
§ 3434.6 Certification. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, institutions that meet the eligibility criteria set forth in § 3434.4 and offer agriculture-related programs in accordance to the criteria set forth in § 3434.5 (see list in Appendix A to this part) shall be granted HSACU certification by the Secretary.
( b ) A complete list of institutions with HSACU certification shall be provided in Appendix B to this part and posted on the NIFA Web site at *http://www.nifa.usda.gov .*
( c ) Institutions with Hispanic students receiving less than 15% of degrees awarded in agriculture-related programs during the two most recent completed academic years shall not be granted HSACU certification by the Secretary.
( d ) The list of HSACU institutions will be updated annually. However, the Secretary reserves the right to make changes at any time, when deemed appropriate and necessary.
Subpart 23.11 - Encouraging Contractor

Policies to Ban Text Messaging While Driving

Parent topic: Part 23 - Environment, Energy and Water Efficiency, Renewable Energy

Technologies, Occupational Safety, and Drug-Free Workplace

23.1101 Purpose.

This subpart implements the requirements of the Executive Order (E.O.) 13513, dated October 1,

2009 (74 FR 51225, October 6, 2009), Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging while

Driving.

23.1102 Applicability.

This subpart applies to all solicitations and contracts.

23.1103 Definitions.

As used in this subpartDriving1. Means operating a motor vehicle on an active roadway with the motor running, including while

temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic light, stop sign, or otherwise.

2. Does not include operating a motor vehicle with or without the motor running when one has

pulled over to the side of, or off, an active roadway and has halted in a location where one can safely

remain stationary.

Text messaging means reading from or entering data into any handheld or other electronic device,

including for the purpose of short message service texting, e-mailing, instant messaging, obtaining

navigational information, or engaging in any other form of electronic data retrieval or electronic

data communication. The term does not include glancing at or listening to a navigational device that

is secured in a commercially designed holder affixed to the vehicle, provided that the destination

and route are programmed into the device either before driving or while stopped in a location off the

roadway where it is safe and legal to park.

23.1104 Policy.

Agencies shall encourage contractors and subcontractors to adopt and enforce policies that ban text

messaging while driving-

(a) Company-owned or rented vehicles or Government-owned vehicles; or
(b) Privately-owned vehicles when on official Government business or when performing any work for

or on behalf of the Government.

23.1105 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.223-18, Encouraging Contractor Policies to Ban

Text Messaging While Driving, in all solicitations and contracts.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

S an Antonio, Texas

March 2, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00023

- CV

Robert THOMPSON, Appellant

v.

Robert NIETO, Appellee

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CV08856 Honorable J Frank Davis, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On February 21, 2020 , this court notified the court reporter that the reporter’s record was late. The court reporter responded to our notice by stating that the reporter’s record has not been filed because appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the reporter’ s fee for preparing the record and appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee.

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court within ten (10) days of the date of this order that either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, appellant’s brief will be due within thirty (30) days from the date of the clerk’s record is filed, and the court will consider only those issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a

decision. S ee T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3(c).

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 2nd day of March, 2020

.___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 31, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00057

- CV

Norma SULLIVAN

, Appellant

v.

Juana MORALES

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court N o. 2015CV01223 Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

T he t rial court clerk has filed a notification of late record, stating that the appellant f ailed to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk ’ s record and that appellant is

not entitled to preparation of the clerk’s record without paying the fee

.

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court on or before February 12, 2019, that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the cl erk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk ’ s fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b); see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c) ( allowing dismissal of appeal if appellant fails to comply with an order of this court).

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 31st day of January, 20 19

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court