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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-239-AW-MJF

TIMOTHY W. MONROE, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Alternative Materials, LLC, sued several defendants over a 

construction project. A default entered, a corporate defendant filed bankruptcy, a 

counterclaim was filed, and the court earlier determined Plaintiff should recover 

$150,000 from Timothy Monroe, plus pre- and postjudgment interest. ECF Nos. 92, 

94. When the court determined the latter point, final judgment did not issue because 

there were other claims outstanding. See ECF No. 94. Plaintiff now proposes to 

amend the complaint to exclude all claims other than its claim against Monroe, and 

the magistrate judge recommends dismissing the counterclaim for failure to 

prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. ECF No. 100.

I have carefully considered the report and recommendation, to which there 

has been no objection. I now adopt the report and recommendation (ECF No. 100) 

and incorporate it into this order. 

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 101 Filed 09/30/24 Page 1 of 2
2

The motion to amend (ECF No. 97) is GRANTED, and the proposed second 

amended complaint (ECF No. 99) is now the operative complaint. Although it 

includes other defendants in the case style, it asserts claims only against one 

defendant: Timothy Monroe. Thus all of Plaintiff’s claims against other defendants 

have been removed from the case. 

The counterclaims are dismissed for failure to prosecute.

That leaves only Plaintiff’s claims against Monroe. Based on the court’s 

earlier determination about Plaintiff’s entitlement to a default judgment on those 

claims, judgment may now enter. 

The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “Plaintiff Alternative Materials, 

LLC, shall recover from Defendant Timothy Monroe compensatory damages in the 

amount of $150,000, in addition to $36,427.07 in prejudgment interest, in addition 

to postjudgment interest.”

1

The clerk will then close the file.

SO ORDERED on September 30, 2024. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

1 The prejudgment interest includes the $35,756.57 referenced in the report 

and recommendation for the period of July 8, 2020 to September 12, 2024, plus

$37.25 for each day from September 13 to today (September 30). Thus the total is 

$35,756.57 + ($37.25 x 18) = $36,427.07.

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 101 Filed 09/30/24 Page 2 of 2
EPA Reg. No. 79630-1 

Vol. 3 

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93 *Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
 

EPA REGISTRTION FILE #79630-1 Vol 3

Page is not included in this copy. 

Pages 129 through 134 are not included in this copy. 

The material not included contains the following type of 

information: 

_ __ Identity of product inert ingredients.

_____ Identity of product impurities. 

 Description of the product manufacturing process. 

_____ Description of quality control procedures. 

 Identity of the source of product ingredients. 

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information. 

_____ A draft product label. 

 _ The product confidential statement of formula. 

_____ Information about a pending registration action. 

X FIFRA registration data. 

_____ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _______. 

_____ The document is not responsive to the request. 

 Internal deliberative information. 

_____ Attorney-Client work product. 

 Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the 

 Agency. 

_____

 

 Personal Privacy Information 

The information not included is generally considered confidential 

by product registrants. If you have any questions, please contact 

the individual who prepared the response to your request. 

_________________________________________________________________ 
135
136
137
138 *Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
139
140
141
###### Editorial Note on Part 3401

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3401 appear at 76 FR 4806, Jan. 27, 2011.

#### § 3401.4 Matching funds requirement.

In accordance with section 1480 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3333), except in the case of Federal laboratories, each grant recipient must match the Federal funds expended on a research project based on a formula of 50 percent Federal and 50 percent non-Federal funding.
#### Helene-Harrison Corp., Appellant-Respondent, v Moneyline Network, Inc., Respondent-Appellant.

[815 NYS2d 515]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered October 5, 2004, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, awarding plaintiff landlord $694,962.93, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered July 28, 2004, which granted plaintiff landlord partial summary judgment on its first cause of action for rent and dismissed defendant tenant’s defenses and counterclaim, and a subsequent directed verdict in favor of defendant limiting the amount of rent and real estate taxes recoverable under the lease to amounts which accrued prior to January 16, 2003, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment denied, defendant’s affirmative defenses and counterclaim reinstated, the directed verdict on damages vacated, and the matter remanded for trial on all issues.

Questions of fact as to liability for the alleged breach of the parties’ commercial office lease are presented by the conflicting affidavits, at the very least with respect to defendant’s second and fifth affirmative defenses. Such issues, including whether the renovation of the demised premises was delayed by reason *457of defendant’s numerous changes of plans and problems with its original project manager or whether the delay was the result of the plaintiff’s numerous demands that the plans be revised, cannot be resolved on a motion for partial summary judgment. Since we are remanding for a new trial on all issues, we leave the question of any limitation of damages as well as the effect of the sale/leaseback transaction for determination by the trial court. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 1165

SHAWN OTIS BUMPASS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. JESSE HOWARD; JAMES WETZEL; DAVID FREY , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling

. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 5:19

- cv
- 00305

- JPB

- JPM )

Submitted : September 30, 2020 Decided: October 2, 2020

Before MOTZ , DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Shawn Otis Bumpass , Appellant Pro Se. Thomas E. Buck , BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC , Wheeling, West Virginia; Donald J. Tennant, Jr. , TENNANT LAW OFFICES , Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Shawn Otis Bumpass appeals the district court’s order dismissing his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to state a claim . We have reviewed the record an d find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bumpass v. Howard , No. 5:19

- cv
- 00305

- JPB

- JPM (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 15, 2020).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate ly presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
Page
      28





**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Statement
      of Chief Executive 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 September 30, 2006, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      the undersigned, as the chief executive officer of the Company, certifies,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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/
                C.E. PorterC.E.
                PorterChief
                Executive OfficerNovember
                10, 2006
31.104 Contracts with educational

institutions.

This category includes all contracts and contract modifications for research and development,

training, and other work performed by educational institutions (defined as institutions of higher

educations in the OMB Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR part 200, subpart A, and 20 U.S.C. 1001).

(a) The contracting officer shall incorporate the cost principles and procedures in subpart 31.3 by

reference in cost-reimbursement contracts with educational institutions as the basis for-

(1) Determining reimbursable costs under the contracts and cost-reimbursement subcontracts

thereunder performed by educational institutions;

(2) Negotiating indirect cost rates; and

(3) Settling costs of cost-reimbursement terminated contracts (see subpart 49.3 and 49.109-7).

(b) The cost principles in this subpart are to be used as a guide in evaluating costs in connection

with negotiating fixed-price contracts and termination settlements.

Parent topic: Subpart 31.1 - Applicability
#### § 29.3612 Rule 11.

Interpretations, the use of specifications, and the meaning of the terms shall be in accordance with determinations or clarifications made by the Chief of the Standards and Testing Branch and approved by the Director.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                               5
<CIK>                          0000797324
<NAME>                         LASERGATE SYSTEMS, INC.
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                          1,924,825
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                     868,931
<ALLOWANCES>                      147,000
<INVENTORY>                       254,901
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                3,089,623
<PP&E>                            579,457
<DEPRECIATION>                    275,433
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  6,436,945
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           3,180,392
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                           240
<COMMON>                          222,961
<OTHER-SE>                      2,895,451
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    6,436,945
<SALES>                         4,024,626
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                4,024,626
<CGS>                           2,937,269
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   9,188,491
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  (67,674)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 53,577
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (4,997,962)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (4,997,962)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                   (4,997,962)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (.82)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at December 31, 1999 and the Statement of Operations for the
Year Ended December 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         181,112
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  173,306
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               354,418
<PP&E>                                       8,426,634
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,579,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,202,052
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,317
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,200,735
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,202,052
<SALES>                                        823,002
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               830,452
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               306,589
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                523,863
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            523,863
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   523,863
<EPS-BASIC>                                      23.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    23.57


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


           In connection with the quarterly report of SurgiCare, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Keith G. LeBlanc, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.







Keith G. LeBlanc, Chief Executive Officer(1)
May 14, 2003



------------------
(1) A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to SurgiCare, Inc. and will be retained by SurgiCare, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7439

DARYL K. FREEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CAPTAIN MCHEE, employed of Odom Correctional Institution; SERGEANT ASKEW, employed at Odom Correctional Institution; CORRECTIONAL OFFICERBLYTHE, employed at Odom Correctional Institution; OFFICER WIGGINS, Correctional officer employed at Odom Correctional Institution; MOSLEY, Correctional Officer employed at Odom Correctional Institution; DEBERRY, Nurse, employed at Odom Correctional Institution;BERTHA THOMPSON, Nurse, employed at Odom Correctional Institution; DOCTOR ANDERSON, Medical Physician employed at Odom Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-96-968-5-CT-F2) Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 11, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daryl K. Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Coull Wilson, Associate Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Daryl K. Freeman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Freeman v. North Carolina Department of Corrections , No. CA-96-968-5-CT-F2 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 20, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           8,820
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     26,489
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          26,489
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            26,489
<LOANS>                                         97,393
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,369
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 136,904
<DEPOSITS>                                     115,165
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,274
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,025
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,261
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,057
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 136,904
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,157
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,554
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,711
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,932
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,779
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  (4)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,338
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,240
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         804
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       804
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.71
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,362
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       59
<RECOVERIES>                                       303
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,369
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
98-1656.

#### Schnitzler v. Agri Gen. Co., L.P.

Marion App. No. 9-98-29. On October 1,1998, appellant filed a document titled “Citation to Relevant Authority.” Appellant’s document contains more than the citation to the relevant authority permitted by S.Ct.Prac.R. 111(3). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that appellant’s citation to relevant authority be, and hereby is, stricken.
#### In the Matter of Joseph Santora, Respondent, v. New York City Housing Authority, Appellant.

Order of the -Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 1, 1966, granting respondent’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim, reversed, on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for a determination *de novo*and with leave to the parties to submit further affidavits, in accordance with the memorandum herewith. No questions of fact have been considered. The nature of the accident does not lend itself to a claim of lack of knowledge thereof on the part of the Housing Authority. While this is not dispositive, it may be taken into consideration *(Matter of Shane*v. *County of Albany,*20 A D 2d 746). Accordingly, and in view of the seriousness of the injuries, the proceeding should be remitted to Special Term for a determination *de novo,*with leave to respondent to submit further affidavits more completely probative of his claim that incapacity was the cause of the failure to timely file (cf. *Matter of Brown*v. *New York City Mousing Auth.,*12 A D 2d 590) and with leave to appellant to submit further opposing affidavits. Beldoek, P'. J., Ughetta, Christ, Rabin and Munder, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of 425 3rd Avenue Realty Co., by Mayerhauser Realty, Inc., Appellant, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Respondent.

[816 NYS2d 411]

*333Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.) entered March 29, 2005, which denied the petition to annul the decision of the respondent agency finding a rent overcharge and imposing treble damages, and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as respondent’s files contained no 2002 annual registration statement for the subject apartment and the owner failed to adduce evidence that the 2002 registration statement was, in fact, filed, it was entirely proper to freeze the legal rent at the amount on April 1, 2002, the effective date for the 2002 registration *(see*Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2528.3 [a]; § 2528.4 [a]; *Matter of Yorkroad Assoc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*19 AD3d 217 [2005]). Invoices for painting, plastering and floor polishing, among other things, were correctly disallowed because they were for ordinary maintenance and repair, rather than for improvements (see *Matter of Mayfair York Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*240 AD2d 158 [1997]). In any event, the tenant’s written consent to the claimed improvements was never obtained (see *Matter of Linden v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*217 AD2d 407 [1995]). The award of treble damages was appropriate because petitioner failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the numerous rent overcharges were not willful (see *Matter of Yorkroad Assoc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*19 AD3d 217 [2005]). We further note that the brokerage fee paid to the wife of a principal of the corporate owner was correctly disallowed *(id.; see*9 NYCRR 2525.1). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Malone, JJ.