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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

v. Case No. 3:20cr70/TKW

MILTON C. PRUITT

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The Defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. 

R. Crim. P., and has entered a plea of guilty to Counts One, Two, and Three of the 

Indictment. After cautioning and examining the Defendant under oath concerning 

each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined the guilty plea was knowing 

and voluntary and the offense charged is supported by an independent basis in fact 

containing each of the essential elements thereof. I therefore recommend the plea 

of guilty be accepted and the Defendant be adjudicated guilty and have sentence 

imposed accordingly.

Dated: December 3, 2020.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00070-TKW Document 37 Filed 12/03/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cr70/TKW

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed 

within twenty-four hours after being served a copy thereof. Any different 

deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use 

only and does not control. A copy of objections must be served upon the 

magistrate judge and all other parties. A party failing to object to a magistrate 

judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report and

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on 

unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See U.S. Ct. of App. 11th Cir. 

Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case 3:20-cr-00070-TKW Document 37 Filed 12/03/20 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

Consolidated Case No. 4:20cv236-RH-MJF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

KIRK NIELSEN et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CONSOLIDATED

v. CASE NO. 4:20cv236-RH-MJF

RON DESANTIS et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The plaintiffs in these consolidated actions challenge Florida voting 

procedures. Three sets of plaintiffs filed separate motions for a preliminary 

injunction. A prior order denied the motions on all claims but one: that the failure 

to provide a method for blind individuals to prepare a remote secret ballot violates 

the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This order 

now denies the motions on that claim as well.

As a prerequisite to a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish a 

substantial likelihood of success on the merits, that the plaintiff will suffer 

irreparable injury if the injunction does not issue, that the threatened injury 

outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause a defendant, and 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 369 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Consolidated Case No: 4:20cv236-RH/MJF

that the injunction will not be adverse to the public interest. See, e.g., Charles H. 

Wesley Educ. Found., Inc. v. Cox, 408 F.3d 1349, 1354 (11th Cir. 2005); Siegel v. 

LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

Two sets of plaintiffs—the Williams plaintiffs and the Grubb plaintiffs—

assert this secret-ballot claim. They will prevail only if there is a feasible, reliable, 

secure method by which blind individuals can cast a remote secret ballot. In 

opposing the claim, the Secretary of State has raised substantial issues about the 

reliability and security of one proposed method. The plaintiffs may prevail on this 

claim at trial—now just three weeks off—but they will suffer no irreparable harm 

between now and then. Requiring the defendants to act more quickly, with the 

attendant risk that any action would turn out to be unnecessary or even ill-advised, 

would be adverse to the public interest. On all voting issues, but especially on this 

one, the carpenter’s dictum rings true: measure twice, cut once.

For these reasons, 

IT IS ORDERED:

The remaining parts of the preliminary-injunction motions, ECF Nos. 86 and 

230, are denied. 

SO ORDERED on July 2, 2020.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 369 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 2
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R AN DY S C OT T B AI L E Y, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. M A X W E L L , C O I V - A dm i ni s tr a t or O ff ender S ervi ce s a tP ho eni x C entra l O ff i ce , sued i n i nd i vi du al and o ff i ci al c ap a c ity ; e t a l, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 15261 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 4 - C V - 0 1 1 7 5 - MH MM EA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona M a ryH . M ur gui a , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A ugus t10, 2010 ** B efo re: H A W K IN S , M cK E O W N , an dIK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R andy B ai l ey , an A ri zona st at e pri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c o u rt’s s u m m a ryju d g m e n t f o rD e f e n d a n ts in h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n . W e



# FI LED AU G 26 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o s u m m a ryju d g m e n t. L ovel l v. Cha nd ler , 3 0 3 F .3 d 1 0 3 9 , 1 0 5 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . W e a f f irm . T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y c on cl ud ed thatD ef endant s are ent i t l ed qu al i fi ed im m u n ityb e c au s e B a ile y ’s r ig h t to d u e p r o c e s s b e f o r e a s s ig n m e n t to th e S e c u r ity M a x im u m U n it w a s n o t c le a r lye s tab lis h e da t th e tim e h e w a s in th e U n it. See W ilkin s o n v . A u s tin , 545 U . S . 209, 223 ( 2005) ( hol di ng tha ta s s i gnm e ntt o a s upe rm a x f

a c i l i tyc a n i nvoke al i be rtyi nt e r e s ta nd not i ng, i n 2005, tha t“ C ourt s of A ppe a l s ha ve notr e a c he d c ons i s t e ntc onc l us i ons f ori de nt i f y i ng the ba s e l i ne f

r om w hi ch t o m ea sure w hati s a typi ca l and si gn i fi canti n any part i cul arpri son sys t em ”) ; Sa nd i n v. C on ner , 515 U . S . 472, 484 ( 1995) ( hol di ng tha tw i thouta typi c a l a nd s ig n if ic a n t h a r d s h ip , d u e p r o c e s s is n o t v io la te d ) . AF F I RME D.
# 4.202 Agency distribution requirements.

Agencies *shall* limit additional distribution requirements to the minimum necessary for proper performance of essential functions. When contracts are assigned for administration to a *contract administration office* located in an agency different from that of the *contracting office* (see part  42), the two agencies *shall* agree on any necessary distribution in addition to that prescribed in 4.201.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 4.2 - Contract Distribution
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

DR. RICHARD S. GLICK, D.O.,

INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF

ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,

 Petitioners

 v.

PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN

INSURANCE COMPANY AND

MOUNTAIN LAUREL INS., CO., D/B/A

PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE CO.,

 Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 240 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

DR. RICHARD S. GLICK, D.O.,

INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF

ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,

 Petitioners

 v.

PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN

INSURANCE COMPANY AND

MOUNTAIN LAUREL INS., CO., D/B/A

PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE CO.,

 Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 241 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM
[240 EAL 2014 and 241 EAL 2014] - 2

AND NOW, this 15th day of October, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED and Respondent’s Application for Leave to File Post-Submission

Communication is DISMISSED as moot.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,389,474
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,548,889
<PP&E>                                          14,722
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,126
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,057,485
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          160,903
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       214,711
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,426,383
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,057,485
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,514,123
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,102,226)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,538,491)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,640,717)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26
        

</TABLE>
#### § 4288.133 Payment liability.

Any payment, or portion thereof, made under this subpart shall be made without regard to questions of title under State law and without regard to any claim or lien against the advanced biofuel, or proceeds thereof, in favor of the owner or any other creditor except agencies of the U.S. Government.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 22, 2011 

t0419 

Order 

 

April 22, 2011 

142267 & (33) 

CHARLOTTE HOFFNER, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Cross-Appellant, 

and 

BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF 

MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142267 

 COA: 292275 

Gogebic CC: 08-000085-NO 

RICHARD LANCTOE and LORI LANCTOE, 

Defendants-Appellants, 

Cross-Appellees, 

and 

PAMELA MACK, TIFFANY K. AHO, and 

MOUSIE, INC., d/b/a FITNESS XPRESS, 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 2, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as crossappellant are considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to 

grant the application for leave to appeal or take other action. MCR 7.302(H)(1). The 

parties may file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order, but they 

should not submit mere restatements of their application papers. 

 The application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant remains pending.
#### John Adler, Respondent, v Charles F. Fishman, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on March 23, 1979, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Grossman, J., at Special Term. Respondent shall recover of appellant $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Bloom and Markewich, JJ.
#### WHITE, Respondent, v. BOCK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department,

June 8, 1906.)

Action by Minnie H. White against Amandus P. G. Bock.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
(September 4, 1980)

#### In the Matter of Peter S. Davis, an Attorney.

Motion to discipline respondent granted only to the extent of referring the matter for a hearing and report as indicated in the order of this court and pending receipt of such report respondent is suspended from practice as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York until further order of this court. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Birns, Fein, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

FOYE P DEES,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:00-cv-00161-MP

KENNETH S APFEL,

JO ANNE BARNHART,

LARRY G MASSANARI,

Defendants.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 34, Motion to Extend Time by Jo Anne Barnhart

to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees, Doc. 33. Defendant seeks the additional

time to retrieve archived files and properly respond to Plaintiff's Motion. Counsel for Defendant

has certified that Plaintiff's counsel does not object to the extension.

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time, Doc. 34, is GRANTED. Defendant shall file

its response on or before Thursday, July 28, 2005.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of June, 2005.

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:00-cv-00161-MP Document 35 Filed 06/28/05 Page 1 of 1
#### Typo Realty Corp., Appellant, v Sydell Greenbaum, Respondent.

In an action, *inter alia,*for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 11, 1979, as denied its motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. Order modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provisions which granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment and substituting therefor a provision denying said cross motion. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. There are questions of fact which should be resolved at a trial. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Margett and Martuscello, JJ.,concur.
# L_2013261EN.01000301.xml

| 3.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 261/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 261/3

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 943/2013

of 1 October 2013

amending for the 203rd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.

| (2) | On 19 September 2013 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) decided to remove one person from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 19 September 2013 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) decided to remove one person from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.

| (3) | Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 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, 1 October 2013.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Head of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments

---

(1)  
  OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 9.

1

---

ANNEX

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended as follows:

The following entry under the heading ‘Natural persons’ is deleted:

‘Fahd Mohammed Ahmed Al-Quso (alias (a) Fahd al-Quso, (b) Fahd Mohammed Ahmen Al-Quso, (c) Abu Huthaifah, (d) Abu Huthaifah al-Yemeni, (e) Abu Huthaifah al-Adani, (f) Abu al-Bara, (g) Abu Huthayfah al- Adani, (h) Fahd Mohammed Ahmed al-Awlaqi, (i) Huthaifah al-Yemeni (j) Abu Huthaifah al-Abu al-Bara, (k) Fahd Mohammed Ahmad al-Kuss). Address: Yemen. Date of birth: 12.11.1974. Place of birth: Aden, Yemen. Nationality: Yemeni. Other information: Reportedly deceased on 6 May 2012 in Yemen. Date of designation referred to in Article 2a(4)(b): 7.12.2010.’

---
List of Subsidiaries
            ​
            ​
            Jurisdiction
            ​Kohlberg Capital Funding LLC I
            ​
            ​
            ​
            ​
            Delaware
            ​
            ​KCAP Senior Funding I Holdings, LLC
            ​
            ​
            ​
            ​
            Delaware
            ​
            ​KCAP Senior Funding I, LLC(4)
            ​
            ​
            ​
            ​
            Delaware
            ​
            ​KCAP Management, LLC
            ​
            ​
            ​
            ​
            Delaware
            ​
            ​Katonah Management Holdings LLC(1)
            ​
            ​
            ​
            ​
            Delaware
            ​
            ​Katonah X Management LLC(1)(2)
            ​
            ​
            ​
            ​
            Delaware
            ​
            ​Katonah 2007-I Management LLC(1)(2)
            ​
            ​
            ​
            ​
            Delaware
            ​
            ​Commodore Holdings, L.L.C.(1)
            ​
            ​
            ​
            ​
            Delaware
            ​
            ​KCAP Coastal, LLC
            ​
            ​
            ​
            ​
            Delaware
            ​
            ​KCAP Funding I, LLC
            ​
            ​
            ​
            ​
            Delaware
            ​
            ​
# L_2020324EN.01000101.xml

| 6.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 324/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 324/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/1393

of 29 September 2020

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ‘Pebre bord de Mallorca’/‘Pimentón de Mallorca’ (PDO)

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) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Pebre bord de Mallorca’/‘Pimentón de Mallorca’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Pebre bord de Mallorca’/‘Pimentón de Mallorca’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Pebre bord de Mallorca’/‘Pimentón de Mallorca’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Pebre bord de Mallorca’/‘Pimentón de Mallorca’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Pebre bord de Mallorca’/‘Pimentón de Mallorca’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.8. – other products listed in Annex I to the Treaty (spices etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

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, 29 September 2020.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

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

1

(2)  
  OJ C 197, 12.6.2020, p. 22.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
22.202 Contract clause.

Insert the clause at 52.222-3, Convict Labor, in solicitations and contracts above the micro-purchase

threshold, when the contract will be performed in the United States, Puerto Rico, the Northern

Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands; unless-

(a) The contract will be subject to 41 U.S.C. chapter 65, (see subpart 22.6), which contains a

separate prohibition against the employment of convict labor;

(b) The supplies or services are to be purchased from Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (see subpart 

8.6); or

(c) The acquisition involves the purchase, from any State prison, of finished supplies that may be

secured in the open market or from existing stocks, as distinguished from supplies requiring special

fabrication.

Parent topic: Subpart 22.2 - Convict Labor