alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 4:03cr56-RH

vs.

JOSEPH MICHAEL WYMAN, 

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ON LETTERS TO THE CLERK

Defendant has submitted two letters to the clerk seeking copies of documents. 

Docs. 172 and 173. Defendant is currently represented by counsel and his case is

pending on direct appeal. See doc. 168 (showing that the record was received by the

court of appeals on November 12, 2004). 

The clerk shall forward a copy of the docket to Defendant for his information. He

may send a written request to the clerk for copies, referencing the document number of

each document requested. The clerk will then respond with a letter advising Defendant

of the total number of pages of the documents requested, and Defendant will be

required to pay $.50 per page. Defendant may also ask his appellate attorney for

documents, particularly after the appeal is concluded. 

Case 4:03-cr-00056-RH-AK Document 174 Filed 04/28/05 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

1

 Defendant is advised that there is a one year limitations period for filing a §

2255 motion, which runs from "the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes

final," unless a later date (specified in the statute) applies. § 2255. 

Case No. 4:03cr56-RH

Once Defendant's conviction has become final on direct review, he may seek

post conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.1 If he is granted leave to proceed in

forma pauperis he may be furnished with copies of the record as required by order of

the judge before whom his application for relief is pending, and may be provided

transcripts if the court certifies that the issue is not frivolous and the transcript is

necessary. 28 U.S.C. § 2250 and § 753(f), respectively. At this time, however, his

request for documents is premature. See Walker v. United States, 424 F.2d 278, 278-

279 (5th Cir. 1970) (under § 2250, "[a] federal prisoner is not entitled to obtain copies of

court records at Government expense for the purpose of searching the record for

possible error.") (citations omitted); United States v. Connors, 904 F.2d 535, 536 (9th

Cir. 1990) (citing Walker); United States v. Horvath, 157 F.3d 131, 132 (2d Cir. 1998)

("a motion for a free transcript pursuant to § 753(f) is not ripe until a § 2255 motion has

been filed.") 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendant's letter motions (docs. 172 and 173) are DENIED; however the

clerk shall forward a copy of the docket to Defendant without charge. 

Case 4:03-cr-00056-RH-AK Document 174 Filed 04/28/05 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No. 4:03cr56-RH

2. The clerk shall forward a copy of this order to Defendant's counsel of record,

for his information.

DONE AND ORDERED on April 28, 2005.

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:03-cr-00056-RH-AK Document 174 Filed 04/28/05 Page 3 of 3
§ 400.208 Term of the contract. ( a ) The term of the Contract shall commence on July 1 or when signed. The contract will continue from year to year with an annual renewal date of July 1 for each succeeding year unless the Corporation or the Contractor gives at least ninety (90) days advance notice in writing to the other party that the contract is not to be renewed. Any breach of the contract, or failure to comply with these Standards, by the Contractor, may result in termination of the contract by the Corporation upon written notice of termination to the Contractor. That termination will be effective thirty (30) days after mailing of the notice and termination to the Contractor.
( b ) A Contractor who elects to continue under the Contract for a subsequent year must, prior to the month of June, submit a completed Plan of Operation which includes the Certifications as required by § 400.203 of this subpart. The Contractor may not perform under the contract until the Plan of Operation is approved by the Corporation.
98-1790.

#### Brown v. Brown.

Franklin App. No. 97APF11-1514. On motion for stay. Motion denied.
#### Denise Ayre, Respondent, v Barry Ayre, Defendant. Lisa Daniels, Nonparty Appellant.

[813 NYS2d 674]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, Lisa Daniels appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Balkin, J.), dated January 24, 2005, which, inter alia, denied that branch of her motion which was to quash a subpoena dated November 4, 2004, as academic, and granted that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was to compel her to appear for a deposition pursuant to a subpoena dated December 22, 2004, issued after the plaintiff withdrew the subpoena dated November 4, 2004.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as granted that branch of the cross motion which was to compel the appellant to appear for a deposition pursuant to the subpoena dated December 22, 2004, is dismissed as academic; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The appeal from so much of the order as granted that branch of the cross motion which was to compel the appellant to appear for a deposition pursuant to the subpoena dated December 22, 2004, has been rendered academic. Accordingly to the oral representations of the parties’ respective counsel upon argument of this appeal, that subpoena was withdrawn on June 28, 2005.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Skelos, Lunn and Dillon, JJ., concur.
AAM-12-078-E 

December 12, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10406 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-1246 

Mr. Benjamin L. Magro 

Coastal Helicopters, Inc. 

141 Peabody Road 

Appleton, ME 04862 

Dear Mr. Magro: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By submission dated November 8, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Coastal Helicopters, Inc. (Coastal) for an exemption from part 120 to 

allow Coastal, which is operating under separate parts of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR), to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Coastal. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one 

would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 
2 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Coastal Helicopters, Inc. an exemption from part 120 to 

the extent necessary to allow Coastal, which is operating under separate parts of the 

regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the 

conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Coastal are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times 

while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Coastal part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on December 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely,

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
#### Marty Markowitz et al., Respondents, v Makura, Inc., Doing Business as Albany Econo Lodge, Appellant.

[816 NYS2d 500]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated February 17, 2005, as, upon renewal, adhered to a prior determination in an order dated February 26, 2004 denying its motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to transfer venue from Kings County to Albany County.

Ordered that order dated February 17, 2005 is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The submissions made by the defendant in support of renewal did not require a result different from that reached by the court in connection with the initial motion *(see*CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; *R.R. Ragette, Inc. v D’Incecco,*17 AD3d 436, 437 [2005]; *Velez v Institute of Design & Constr., Inc.,*11 AD3d 453, 454 [2004]). Therefore, upon renewal, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its prior determination denying the defendant’s motion to transfer venue.

The defendant’s contention that a fair trial may not be had in Kings County in this personal injury action merely because the injured plaintiff is a public official elected by the voters of Kings County is without merit *(cf. Silver v Pataki,*179 Misc 2d 315, 322 [1999], *revd*274 AD2d 57 [2000], *mod*96 NY2d 532 [2001]). The Supreme Court correctly determined, moreover, that the defendant failed to make the requisite showing that either the convenience of witnesses or the interests of justice warranted the transfer of venue from Kings County to Albany County *(see*
      *651CPLR 510 [3]; *O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp.,*207 AD2d 169, 172-173 [1995]; *see also Spicer v Adelson,*24 AD3d 430 [2005]; *Shindler v Warf,*24 AD3d 429, 429-430 [2005]; *Parks v Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc.,*19 AD3d 570, 570-571 [2005]; *Giaimo v Hastings,*19 AD3d 365, 366 [2005]; *cf. Dwyer v Nobody Beats the Wiz, Inc.,*23 AD3d 334, 334-335 [2005]). The convenience of two of the six witnesses identified by the defendant is not a relevant factor since they are officers or managers of the defendant corporation *(see Mei Ying Wu v Waldbaum, Inc.,*284 AD2d 434, 435 [2001]; *McAdoo v Levinson,*143 AD2d 819, 820 [1988]). Three nonparty witnesses from the Albany area were identified by the defendant as having testimony arguably relevant to the slip-and-fall accident which underlies this action. The inconvenience to them is not sufficient to outweigh the inconvenience to the plaintiffs’ witnesses who would be required to travel to Albany if the trial were held there *(cf. Heiss v Moose,*16 AD3d 765, 766 [2005]). Moreover, the remaining nonparty witness identified by the defendant resides in Buffalo, and the defendant did not demonstrate that it would be more inconvenient for him to travel to New York City than to Albany. Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Santucci and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
[LETTERHEAD OF KPMG LLP]



             Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


The Board of Members
Regulus Group LLC:

We have examined management's assessment for those customers that management has
informed  us  have  requested  confirmation  of  compliance,   included  in  the
accompanying  Report on Assessment of  Compliance  with  Regulation AB Servicing
Criteria,  that Regulus Group LLC complied with the servicing criteria set forth
in  Item  1122(d)(2)(i)  and  1122(d)(4)(iv)  of  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission's  Regulation AB for remittance  processing services to those issuers
of asset backed securities and servicers of loan and/or  receivables  portfolios
that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions (the Platform)
as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006. Regulus Group LLC has determined
that  the  remainder  of  the  servicing  criteria  are  not  applicable  to the
activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006.  Management is responsible for the Company's  compliance with
those  servicing  criteria.  Our  responsibility  is to  express  an  opinion on
management's assessment about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was conducted in  accordance  with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting  Oversight Board (United States) and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
servicing  criteria  specified above and performing such other  procedures as we
considered  necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing of
less than all of the individual  asset-backed  transactions  and securities that
comprise  the  Platform,  testing of less than all of the  servicing  activities
related to the Platform,  and  determining  whether the Company  processed those
selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with
the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected
transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period
covered by this report.  Our procedures  were not designed to determine  whether
errors may have  occurred  either prior to or  subsequent  to our tests that may
have  affected  the  balances or amounts  calculated  or reported by the Company
during the period  covered by this report for the selected  transactions  or any
other transactions.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal  determination on the
Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our  opinion,  management's  assessment  that the Company  complied  with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006
is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, PA
February 22, 2007
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JEFFERY T. CRYSTAL,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5579/LAC/EMT

PORSCHE OF DESTIN, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on April

16, 2021 (ECF No. 16). Plaintiff was furnished a copy of the Report and

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title

28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of

the timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the objections

thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

16) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.
Page of 2

2. Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Grinsted and Judge Stone are

DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a state a claim on which relief

may be granted, pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

3. Plaintiff’s claims against the Okaloosa County State Attorney’s

Office, State Attorney William Eddins, Assistant State Attorney Reed, and

Assistant State Attorney Bernhardt are DISMISSED with prejudice for seeking

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief, pursuant to §

1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).

4. Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining Defendants are DISMISSED

for failure to state a state a claim on which relief may be granted, pursuant to

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

5. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with

this order and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of May, 2021.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:20cv5579/LAC/EMT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

SHAKEENA RICE, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated; 

TENETIA TURNER, an individual; 

ASHLEY JORDAN, an individual, 

Case No. 3:20-cv-05695-TKW-EMT 

COLLECTIVE ACTION 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MR. T'S, INC., a Florida corporation, 

formerly dba LOOKERS LOUNGE, aka 

CHEETAH; TERRY L. THOMAS, an 

individual; CLIFFORD G. MCGHEE, 

an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, 

inclusive, 

Defendants. 

JUDMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SHAKEENA RICE 

On April 16, 2021, defendants MR. T'S, Inc., formerly dba Lookers Lounge, 

aka Cheetah, Teny L. Thomas, and Clifford G. McGhee (collectively, 

"Defendants") served plaintiff Shakeena Rice ("Plaintiff') with an Offer of 

Judgment in this action in the total amount of THIRTY THOUSAND U.S. 

DOLLARS ($30,000.00), inclusive of costs and attorneys' fees. On April 16, 2020, 

Plaintiff accepted the Offer. See Dkt. 25. 

JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SHAKEENA RICE PAGE 1 OF2 

Case 3:20-cv-05695-TKW-EMT Document 32 Filed 05/03/21 Page 1 of 2
In accordance with the Offer of Judgment and Notice of Acceptance, Plaintiff 

shall have and recover from Defendants, jointly and severally, the total sum of 

THIRTY THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS ($30,000.00), inclusive of costs and 

attorneys' fees. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that a Final Judgment is 

entered for Plaintiff and against Defendants for the total sum of THIRTY 

THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS ($30,000.00), inclusive of costs and attorneys' fees, 

with interest at the legal rate of ten percent ( I 0%) per annum from the date of the 

entry of this Judgment. Each party shall bear their own costs and fees. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: , 2021 

JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SHAKEENA RICE 

HONORABLE T. KENT WETHERELL, II 

UNITED STA TES DISTRICT JUDGE 

PAGE2OF2 

Case 3:20-cv-05695-TKW-EMT Document 32 Filed 05/03/21 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350

The undersigned, Keith G. LeBlanc, President and Chief Executive Officer of
SurgiCare, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002,
hereby certifies that:

(1) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March
31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

Date:    May 14, 2004

By:                Keith G. LeBlanc
                   -----------------------------------------
                   Keith G. LeBlanc, Chief Executive Officer



                                       25
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR FISCAL QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         6-MOS
<CASH>                            4,230,527
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                       348,061
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                         457,512
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  7,000,799
<PP&E>                            2,115,791
<DEPRECIATION>                      850,260
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   12,459,235
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             1,445,483
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                         140,257
<COMMON>                            317,797
<OTHER-SE>                       10,213,799
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     12,459,235
<SALES>                           2,503,583
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  2,503,583
<CGS>                             2,258,212
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     2,258,212
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   17,747
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (1,928,982)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (1,928,982)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                     (1,928,982)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (0.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.68)

        

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LUIS F. BRUNI,

FDOC Inmate No. L52662,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5672-MCR-EMT

ROSS LICATA, et al.,

Defendants.

/

O R D E R

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on August 

19, 2021. ECF No. 13. The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all 

timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 

objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Case 3:20-cv-05672-MCR-EMT Document 15 Filed 09/09/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5672-MCR-EMT

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 

13, is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. The clerk of court is directed to transfer this action to the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Florida for all further proceedings and 

close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of September 2021.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05672-MCR-EMT Document 15 Filed 09/09/21 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 99.1

                 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                 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 on Form 10-Q of uniView
 Technologies Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended December 31,
 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
 hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick A. Custer, Chief Executive Officer
 and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
 18 U.S.C. S1350, as adopted pursuant to S906 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 results of operations of the
 Company.


                                    /s/ PATRICK A. CUSTER
                                    Patrick A. Custer
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    and Principal Financial Officer

 June 17, 2003