alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Not for publication in West's Federal Reporter Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3 

# United Stat es Court of Appeals

For the First C ircuit

Nos. 02-2237 02-2586 RANDOLPH L. CHAMBERS, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. JANE COPLAN, Warden, New Hampshire State Prison, in her individual and official capacities, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellants.
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge ]
Before Boudin, Chief Judge , Torruella and Howard, Circuit Judges . Randolph L. Chambers on brief pro se.
December 24, 2003-2-

Per Curiam . After carefully considering the record and the appellant's briefs in these consolidated appeals, we affirmthe judgments below. The appellant appeals from the denial of a preliminary injunction and from the dismissal of his suit for failure to
e xhaust administrative remedies. The preliminary injunction wa s properly denied because the appellant failed to show likely success
on the merits. Weaver v. Henderson , 984 F.2d 11 (1 st Cir. 1993). The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because the appellant failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a). The appellant argues that the complaint should not have been dismisse d b ecause he exhausted administrative remedies while the suit was pending. We have held, however, that belated exhaustion will not save a complaint from dismissal. Medina-Claudio v. Rodriguez-Mateo , 292 F.3d31 (1 st Cir. 2002). Finally , the appellant's assertion that the exhaustion requirement is inapplicable to his claims is untenable. Exhaustion is mandatory for all actions concerning prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or any other federal law. Porter v. Nussle , 534 U.S. 516 (2002). Affirmed . Loc. R. 27(c).
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES AND

INVESTMENTS, INC., f/k/a F&W

AGRISERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

vs. Case No. 5:02-CV-080-SPM

BAGGETT BROTHERS FARM, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants/Counter-Claimaints.

_________________________________/

ORDER AWARDING LEASE PAYMENTS TO DEFENDANTS

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the mandate issued by the

Eleventh Circuit (doc. 192). With respect to the issue of whether Plaintiff,

Agricultural Services and Investments, Inc., (“ASI”), also known as The Cougar

Agricultural Services Company (“CASC”) breached the three-year land lease

agreement with Defendants, the Baggett Brothers, the mandate declares the

existence of an unambiguous, legally binding contract and instructs this Court to

find in favor of Defendants.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The three-year Lease Agreement executed by the parties is a valid

and enforceable contract.

Case 5:02-cv-00080-SPM-AK Document 196 Filed 02/07/08 Page 1 of 2
2

2. The failure of Plaintiffs to comply with the terms of the Lease

Agreement constitutes a breach.

3. Plaintiffs shall pay Defendants $2,038,752.40, for which let

execution issue.

DONE AND ORDERED this seventh day of February, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 5:02-cv-00080-SPM-AK Document 196 Filed 02/07/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING

56 Forsyth Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

David J. Smith

Clerk of Court 

August 05, 2022

For rules and forms visit

www.ca11.uscourts.gov

Clerk - Northern District of Florida

U.S. District Court 

100 N PALAFOX ST

PENSACOLA, FL 32502

Appeal Number: 20-14003-BB ; 21-11072 -BB

Case Style: Ladies Memorial Association, et al v. City of Pensacola, Florida, et al

District Court Docket No: 3:20-cv-05681-MCR-EMT

Enclosed is the Bill of Costs supplementing this court's mandate which has previously issued.

A copy of this letter, and the judgment form if noted above, but not a copy of the court's 

decision, is also being forwarded to counsel and pro se parties. A copy of the court's decision 

was previously forwarded to counsel and pro se parties on the date it was issued.

Sincerely,

DAVID J. SMITH, Clerk of Court

Reply to: Lois Tunstall

Phone #: (404) 335-6191

Enclosure(s) 

MDT-1 Letter Issuing Mandate

USCA11 Case: 20-14003 Date Filed: 08/05/2022 Page: 1 of 1

Case 3:20-cv-05681-MCR-ZCB Document 62 Filed 08/05/22 Page 1 of 2
USCA11 Case: 20-14003 Date Filed: 08/05/2022 Page: 1 of 1

Case 3:20-cv-05681-MCR-ZCB Document 62 Filed 08/05/22 Page 2 of 2
#### § 51.1166 Poorly colored.

*Poorly colored* as applied to common oranges means that not more than 25 percent of the surface may be solid dark green color.
From: <twlohner@aep.com>

To: Thomas.Finseth@erg.com

CC: Jordan.Ronald@epamail.epa.gov

Date: 3/13/2012 10:03 AM

Subject: Re: MT ABMet System

System start up date: Nov. 11, 2011

Steady

- state achieved: Feb. 11, 2012

"Thomas Finseth" <Thomas.Finseth@erg.com>

03/12/2012 08:12 AM

To

<twlohner@aep.com>

cc

<Jordan.Ronald@epamail.epa.gov>

Subject

Re: MT ABMet System

Tim,

Thanks for the respons e and providing the NPDES permit. I have a couple

of follow

- up questions regarding the system and your response.

1) For the ABMet start up date that you provided, November 10, 2011, was

that the actual start up date (i.e., system started operation on that

day), or was it the projected start up date (i.e., based on the project

schedule it was supposed to start operation that day). If the latter,

please provide the actual start up date.

2) Please provide the date that the system reached steady

- s tate operation.

Thanks again for your time.

TJ

>>> <twlohner@aep.com> 3/9/2012 2:21 PM >>>

TJ, the project schedule for the ABMet System shows that construction was

substantially complete, and the facility went on

- line, on November 10,

2011. Attache d is a copy of the Mountaineer Plant NPDES permit and its

modification.

Let me know if you need anything else.

Tim
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 5:03cr42/MCR/CJK

WILLARD TIMOTHY CARROLL

 /

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

filed on March 1, 2012, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and after reviewing

objections to the Recommendation, if any, the Recommendation is adopted as the opinion

of the court.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The defendant’s amended motion to reopen judgment (doc. 107), filed

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) is DENIED.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of April, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2005-2349.

#### Natl. Lime & Stone Co. v. Blanchard Twp.

Hardin App. No. 6-04-04, 2005-Ohio-5758. Reported at 108 Ohio St.3d 1511, 2006-Ohio-1329, 844 N.E.2d 856. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, J., dissent.
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 5:91CR5008LAC

 

THOMAS LEE STEPHENS

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on September 1, 2005

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION TO REDUCE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2)

Filed byDEFENDANT PRO SE on8/31/05 Doc.# 196

RESPONSES:

BY GOVERNMENT on8/31/05 Doc.# 195

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

/s/ / Mary Maloy-Wells

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy-Wells

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 6th day of

September, 2005, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) The Court adopts the well reasoned response submitted by the Government. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 5:91-cr-05008-WS-CAS Document 197 Filed 09/06/05 Page 1 of 1
<page>
                                                          Exhibit 32.1

                            NORDSTROM CREDIT, INC.

                           13531 EAST CALEY AVENUE

                          CENTENNIAL, COLORADO 80111

                          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 Nordstrom Credit, Inc (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Kevin T. Knight, President (Principal Executive Officer), and Michael G.
Koppel, Vice President and Treasurer (Principal Financial 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:

      - The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      - The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
        material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
        of the Company.

                                                June 14, 2005

                                                /s/ Kevin T. Knight
                                                ----------------------
                                                Kevin T. Knight
                                                President

                                                /s/ Michael G. Koppel
                                                ----------------------
                                                Michael G. Koppel
                                                Vice President and Treasurer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Nordstrom, Inc. and will be retained by Nordstrom Credit, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 5:88cr05040/RV

KUNTA ALLAH MUWWAKIL

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Senior Judge Roger Vinson on August 9, 2004 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION for reconsideration of ORDER (doc. 202) Denying Petition for

Writ of Error Coram Nobis 

Filed by Defendant on 8/4/2005 Doc.# 205 

 

RESPONSES:

on Doc.# 

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

 Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

 s/Jerry Marbut

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Jerry Marbut

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 10th of

 August , 2005, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) 

 /s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

United States District Judge

Case 5:88-cr-05040-RV-EMT Document 206-2 Filed 08/10/05 Page 1 of 1
9.101 Definitions.       *Administrative proceeding* means a non-judicial process that is adjudicatory in nature in order to make a determination of fault or liability (*e.g.*, Securities and Exchange Commission Administrative Proceedings, Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Proceedings, and Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals Proceedings). This includes administrative proceedings at the Federal and state level but only in connections with performance of a Federal contract or grant. It does not include agency actions such as contract audits, site visits, corrective plans, or inspection of deliverables.          *Surveying activity*, as used in this subpart, means the cognizant contract administration office or, if there is no such office, another organization designated by the agency to conduct preaward surveys.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 9.1 - Responsible Prospective Contractors
# L_2013268EN.01000301.xml

| 10.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 268/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 268/3

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 963/2013

of 2 October 2013

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Carn d’Andorra (PGI))

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) | Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 entered into force on 3 January 2013. It repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 entered into force on 3 January 2013. It repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2).

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Principality of Andorra’s application to register the name ‘Carn d’Andorra’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Principality of Andorra’s application to register the name ‘Carn d’Andorra’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3).

| (3) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

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, 2 October 2013.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

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

1

(2)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

2

(3)  
  OJ C 356, 20.11.2012, p. 5.

3

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.1.   Fresh meat (and offal)

PRINCIPALITY OF ANDORRA

Carn d’Andorra (PGI)

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ARTHUR RAMOS DAMIAN,

Petitioner,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv388-MW/MAF

WILLIAM P. BARR, et al.,

Respondents.

______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation, ECF No. 12. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

1

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted, as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “This action is DISMISSED with 

prejudice as moot.” The Clerk shall close the file. 

SO ORDERED on December 21, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

1 The report and recommendation that was mailed to Petitioner at the Wakulla County Jail

was returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 16. Ordinarily, the Clerk would try to mail again, but it 

appears the Petitioner has been released from the Wakulla County Jail, hence his petition is now 

moot. 

Case 4:20-cv-00388-MW-MAF Document 17 Filed 12/21/20 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Randolph, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County, rendered November 15, 1979, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of the crime of attempted burglary in the third degree. At the conclusion of a *Huntley*hearing held on October 4, 1979, in which the defendant’s statement given after his arrest was ruled admissible, the defendant’s attorney, following extensive consultation with the defendant, offered to withdraw defendant’s prior plea of not guilty to the indictment charging burglary in the third degree and to enter a plea of guilty to the crime of attempted burglary in the third degree in full satisfaction of the indictment. The defendant’s plea to attempted burglary in the third degree was accepted by the court after a thorough and extensive interrogation during which the defendant made' an intelligent waiver of his trial rights, admitted the commission of the crime to which he was pleading, and stated that his plea was voluntary and made without any promises as to punishment. After the receipt of a probation report and on November 15, 1979, the day of sentencing, the defendant requested permission to withdraw his plea of guilty on the sole ground of the inadequacy of his representation by counsel. The court refused to allow the withdrawal of the defendant’s guilty plea and sentenced the defendant to an indeterminate term of two to four years. Permission to withdraw a plea rests in the sound discretion of the court (CPL 220.60), and the refusal to permit the withdrawal of a prior plea of guilty does not constitute an abuse of discretion unless there is some evidence or claim of innocence, fraud or mistake in inducing the plea *(People v Cooke,*61 AD2d 1060). Clearly no such showing has been made herein. The defendant’s claim now of the inadequacy of his *567counsel’s representation lacks specificity and factual support in the record. Such representation has not been shown to be inadequate. Therefore, the County Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to vacate the plea. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction should be affirmed. Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Casey, JJ., concur.
REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE

First American Real Estate Solutions of Texas, L,P. (an indirect subsidiary of
The First American Corporation, and the "Asserting Party") is responsible for
assessing compliance as of December 31, 2006, and for the period from January
1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 (the "Reporting Period") with the servicing
criteria set forth in Title 17, Sections 229.1122(d)(1)(iv), (d)(2)(v),
(d)(2)(vi), (d)(2)(vii), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii) and (d)(4)(xiii) of the Code
of Federal Regulations (the "CFR") applicable to the Asserting Party (the
"Applicable Servicing Criteria"). The transactions covered by this report
include all loans for residential mortgage loan outsourcing customers for
which the Asserting Party served as the residential tax service provider (the
"Platform").

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that, except as set forth
hereinbelow, the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with
the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2006, and for the
Reporting Period with respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

The Asserting Party assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria for the Reporting Period and has identified a material instance of
noncompliance with the servicing criterion set forth in Section
229.1122(d)(2)(vii)(B) of the CFR with respect to the Platform. Specifically,
the Asserting Party did not prepare reconciliations for all asset-backed
securities related bank accounts within 30 calendar days after the bank
statement cut-off date or such number of days specified in the transaction
agreements.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm,
has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2006, and for the Reporting
Period as set forth in this assertion.


FIRST AMERICAN REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS OF TEXAS, L.P.
By: First American Real Estate Solutions LLC
    General Partner

/s/ Lucy A. Przybyla
--------------------------
Lucy A. Przybyla
Senior Vice President
February 28, 2007
2006-0619.

#### Perry v. Kelly.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus of Vaughn Perry. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 236 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to clarify the treatment 

of payment under the medicare program for clinical laboratory tests 

furnished by critical access hospitals. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2005 

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska (for himself, Ms. COLLINS, Ms. CANTWELL, and 

Mrs. MURRAY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to clarify 

the treatment of payment under the medicare program 

for clinical laboratory tests furnished by critical access 

hospitals.

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 ‘‘Critical Access to Clin5 ical Lab Services Act of 2005’’. 
2

•S 236 IS

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF PAYMENT FOR CLINICAL LAB2 ORATORY TESTS FURNISHED BY CRITICAL 

3 ACCESS HOSPITALS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1834(g)(4) of the Social 

5 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(g)(4)) is amended— 

6 (1) in the heading, by striking ‘‘NO

7 BENEFICIARY COST-SHARING FOR’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘TREATMENT OF’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following new sen10 tence: ‘‘For purposes of the preceding sentence and 

11 section 1861(mm)(3), clinical diagnostic laboratory 

12 services furnished by a critical access hospital shall 

13 be treated as being furnished as part of outpatient 

14 critical access services without regard to whether— 

15 ‘‘(A) the individual with respect to whom 

16 such services are furnished is physically present 

17 in the critical access hospital at the time the 

18 specimen is collected; 

19 ‘‘(B) such individual is registered as an 

20 outpatient on the records of, and receives such 

21 services directly from, the critical access hos22 pital; or 

23 ‘‘(C) payment is (or, but for this sub24 section, would be) available for such services 

25 under the fee schedule established under section 

26 1833(h).’’. 
3

•S 236 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 subsection (a) shall apply to cost reporting periods begin3 ning on or after October 1, 2003.

Æ