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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

GARY LEE SEYMOUR,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:20-cv-214-TKW-MJF

RICKY D. DIXON, 

 Defendant.

_______________________________________/ 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND 

OTHER PRETRIAL DEADLINES

COMES NOW Defendant, RICKY D. DIXON, through undersigned counsel, and does

hereby move to continue the ‘settlement conference’ scheduled for Feb. 16, 2023 at 9:30 AM, 

CST. [Doc. 67]. Defendant additionally moves to continue the other pretrial filing deadline for 

the filing of pretrial statements, exhibit lists, and witness lists . [Doc. 74]. Defendant alleges the 

following: 

1. This Court has scheduled a ‘settlement conference’ herein for Feb. 10, 2023, at 9:30 

a.m. (CST)., with a related deadline attendant thereto (‘confidential settlement statement’ to be 

submitted by Feb. 6th). [Doc. 67] 

 2. The Court has also extended the deadline for both parties to file their pretrial statements, 

exhibit and witness lists until Feb. 10, 2023. [Doc. 74] 

2. Undersigned counsel for Defendant has resigned his position with the Attorney 

General’s office , effective Feb. 10, 2023, with his last day of employment as an Assistant Attorney 

General being Feb. 9th. 

3. Undersigned counsel accordingly will be unable to conduct the settlement conference 

on behalf of Defendant, and adequately prepare the pretrial statement, etc., also required. 

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 88 Filed 02/02/23 Page 1 of 3
2 

4. Accordingly, Defendant requests that the settlement conference herein, and attendant 

deadline, as well as the deadline for filing the pretrial statement, etc., be continued and rescheduled 

for a date at least thirty (30) days from the current scheduled date, so that a new attorney can be 

assigned to represent Defendant, and to afford him or her the ability to familiarize himself/ herself 

with the file so as to conduct a meaningful settlement conference, and prepare the required pretrial 

statement, 

5. Furthermore, Defendant has not yet furnished Plaintiff’s counsel with the discovery 

items subject to the Court’s discovery Order [Doc. 79], but anticipates doing so shortly. 

6. Counsel for Plaintiff have been contacted regarding the filing of this motion, and stated 

that they have no objection to the granting of same, and likewise request that all pretrial deadlines 

referenced herein be continued for thirty (30) days. 

 Respectfully submitted,

ASHLEY MOODY 

ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/ Joe Belitzky 

JOE BELITZKY

Senior Assistant Attorney General

Florida Bar No. 0217301 

Office of the Attorney General

The Capitol, PL-01 

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 

Telephone: (850) 414-3300 

Facsimile: (850) 488-4872 

Joe.belitzky@myfloridalegal.com 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed via 

CM/ECF on Feb. 2, 2023. 

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 88 Filed 02/02/23 Page 2 of 3
3 

/s/ Joe Belitzky 

JOE BELITZKY

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 88 Filed 02/02/23 Page 3 of 3
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 1-11 Filed 03/11/20 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 1-11 Filed 03/11/20 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74068-74069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30084]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel; U10 Teleconference Review.
    Date: December 7, 2010.
    Time: 11 a.m. to 12 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Eye Institute, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 
20852. (Telephone Confence Call).
    Contact Person: Samuel Rawlings, PhD, Chief, Scientific Review 
Branch, Division of Extramural Research, National Eye Institute, 
National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, MSC 
9300. 301-451-2020. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#631102140f0a0d0410230d060a4d0d0a0b4d040c15"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5b293a2c3732353c281b353e3275353233753c342d">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel; NEI Data Analysis and Epidemiology Grant Applications.
    Date: December 14-15, 2010.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, 
5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852. (Virtual Meetingl).
    Contact Person: Anne E. Schaffner, PhD, Scientific Review 
Branch, Division of Extramural Research, National Eye Institute, 
National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, MSC 
9300. 301-451-2020. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#53323620133d363a7d3d3a3b7d343c25"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5a3b3f291a343f3374343332743d352c">[email protected]</span></a>.


[[Page 74069]]


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, 
Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 23, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-30084 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Order entered January 27 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00930
- CR
ALICE ANNETTE STEELE , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F08
- 45120
- M



### O RDER
The Court REINSTATE S the appeal. On January 13, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the clerk’s and reporter’s records have not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant
desires to pursue the appeal; (2) appellant is indigent and represented by court

- appointed counsel; (3) counsel made timely requests for preparation of the records; (4) Belinda Baraka is the court reporter who recorded the proceedings; (5) Ms. Baraka’s explanatio n for the delay in filing the record is her workload; (6) Ms. Baraka stated she could file the record within thirty days of the January 21, 2014 findings; and (7) the clerk’s record can be filed within thirty days of the January 21, 2014 findings.
We recei ved the clerk’s record on January 23, 2014.We ORDER court reporter Belinda Baraka to file the reporter’s record by FEBRUARY

20, 2014 . No further extensions will be granted.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Belinda Baraka, official court reporter, 194th Judicial District Court , and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
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 September 30,
 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

 November 14, 2002
Case 1:94-cr-01036-MW-GRJ   Document 185   Filed 10/04/12   Page 1 of 6

Case 1:94-cr-01036-MW-GRJ   Document 185   Filed 10/04/12   Page 2 of 6

Case 1:94-cr-01036-MW-GRJ   Document 185   Filed 10/04/12   Page 3 of 6

Case 1:94-cr-01036-MW-GRJ   Document 185   Filed 10/04/12   Page 4 of 6

Case 1:94-cr-01036-MW-GRJ   Document 185   Filed 10/04/12   Page 5 of 6

Case 1:94-cr-01036-MW-GRJ   Document 185   Filed 10/04/12   Page 6 of 6
# 22.1005 [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**Subpart 22.10 - Service Contract Labor Standards
§ 1752.12 Parity lien. A Borrower's request for parity may be approved subject to the conditions set forth in this section. In order to request assistance under this section, the Borrower must make a showing that the amount of new debt is at least equal to the amount of the collateral being added and will cure any existing or projected delinquency. The following factors will be considered in assessing whether the request is in the Government's best interest: ( a ) The value of the added assets compared with the amount of new debt to be secured;
( b ) The value of the assets already pledged under the Loan Documents, and any effects of the proposed transaction on the value of those assets;
( c ) The ratio of the total outstanding debt secured under the Loan Documents to the value of all assets pledged as security under the Loan Documents;
( d ) The Borrower's ability to repay its debt owed to the Government;
( e ) The overall financial viability of the Borrower; and
( f ) That the Borrower is in good standing with the Agency or will become so with the parity lien; and
( g ) Such other conditions as may be imposed by the Agency on a case-by-case basis, as determined by RUS.
# 19.1507           [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**Subpart 19.15 - Women-Owned Small Business Program.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

CRAIG CALDWELL,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:02-cv-00091-MP

MICHAEL W. MOORE,

Defendant.

________________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 23, Motion for Reconsideration, filed by Plaintiff

Craig Caldwell. In his motion, Plaintiff Caldwell seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order

adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and dismissing his complaint

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failure to state a

claim. The Magistrate recommended dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint because it failed to allege

the requisite exhaustion, citing to Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 731 (11th Cir. 1998). In Jones

v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 922 (2007), the Supreme Court overturned Rivera, and held that

exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 110 Stat. 1321-71, as amended, 42

U.S.C. § 1997e et seq., is not a pleading requirement that a prisoner must satisfy in his

complaint, but rather is an affirmative defense that a defendant must plead and prove. Relying

on this recent case, Plaintiff states that he was given an unwarranted strike, and seeks relief from

the order adopting the Magistrate’s Report. Because of the intervening case law cited by

Plaintiff, the Court finds that a response from the Defendant is necessary to evaluate Plaintiff’s

motion. Accordingly, it is hereby 

Case 5:02-cv-00091-MP Document 27 Filed 08/14/07 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 5:02-cv-00091-MP

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Defendant is directed to file a response to Plaintiff Caldwell’s Motion for

Reconsideration, Doc. 23. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of August, 2007

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 5:02-cv-00091-MP Document 27 Filed 08/14/07 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,360
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     3
<PP&E>                                             327
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (40)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              304
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,346
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,650
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    43
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    80
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  25
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    203
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       141
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:95-cr-01027-MP

BRYAN EDMOND HUNT,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 88, Defendant’s “Fourth Motion Concerning the

Authenticity of the Original Records Pertaining to the Criminal Proceeding Held in this Action.” 

In the motion, Defendant seeks reconsideration of this Court’s orders dated May 29, 2009, and

June 9, 2009, in which the Court granted in part Defendant’s motion to preserve the original

stenographic notes of his change of plea hearing but denied Defendant’s motion to produce the

original audio recordings, which no longer exist. Defendant now asks that the original

stenographic notes be turned over to him, and he demands details regarding the deletion of the

original audio recordings. Defendant is not entitled to the requested relief, and the Court sees no

reason to reconsider its previous orders on this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The motion at Doc. 88 is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of June, 2009

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:95-cr-01027-MP Document 89 Filed 06/23/09 Page 1 of 1
**EVEREST BAYBERRY, LP**

 

**LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT**

 

This Limited Partnership Agreement, effective as of March 21, 2006, is entered into by and among the Partners set forth below, pursuant to the Act on the following terms and conditions.

 

| **1.** | **Organization.** |
|--------|-------------------|

 

1.1       Formation. On or about March 21, 2006, Lisa L. Longo organized the Partnership as a California limited partnership by executing and delivering a Certificate of Limited Partnership to the Secretary of State in accordance with and pursuant to the Act.

 

1.2       Name and Place of Business. The name of the Partnership shall be Everest Bayberry, LP, (the “Partnership”) and its principal place of business shall be 199 S. Los Robles Avenue, Suite 200, Pasadena, California 91 101. The General Partner may change the principal place of business of the Partnership as the General Partner may reasonably determine to be necessary or desirable.

 

1.3       Business and Purpose: The business of the Company shall be (a) to accomplish any lawful business whatsoever, conducive to or expedient for the protection or benefit of the Company and its assets and related, directly or indirectly, to the acquisition, management or disposition of the Property (as defined below), (b) the exercise of all other powers necessary to or reasonably connected with the Partnership’s business which may be legally exercised by a limited partnership under the Act, and (c) to engage in all activities necessary, customary, convenient, or incidental to any of the foregoing.

 

1.4       Term. The Partnership commenced on the filing of the Certificate of Limited Partnership with the Secretary of State and shall continue for a period of thirty (30) years from the date of this Agreement or for such longer period as may be agreed upon by the Partners and permitted by the Act, unless earlier terminated in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement or the Act. 

 

1.5       Registered Agent. The Partnership’s initial registered agent shall be as provided in the Certificate of Limited Partnership. The registered agent may be changed from time to time by filing the name of the new registered agent pursuant to the Act.

 

1.6       Qualification. The General Partner shall cause the Partnership to be qualified or authorized to do business in any state in which such qualification or authorization is necessary in connection with the conduct of the Partnership’s business.

 

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION

GERNARD DENEZ CHESTNUT,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv5679-MCR-HTC

CLEMMONS WALKER, et al.,

Defendants.

/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation dated September 2, 2020. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was furnished 

with a copy of the Report and Recommendation and was afforded an opportunityto 

file an objection pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have 

made a de novo determination of any timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections 

thereto timely filed, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 6, is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

Case 3:20-cv-05679-MCR-HTC Document 14 Filed 03/04/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is 

DENIED. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because Plaintiff is a 

three-striker under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and for abuse of the judicial process by 

failing to disclose Plaintiff’s complete litigation history.

3. The clerk be directed to close this file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of October 2020.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 3:20cv5679-MCR-HTC

Case 3:20-cv-05679-MCR-HTC Document 14 Filed 03/04/21 Page 2 of 2
§ 3560.605 Eligibility requirements. ( a ) To be eligible for an on-farm labor housing loan, the applicant must meet the requirements of § 3560.55(a) with the exception of § 3560.55(a)(1), (5), and (6) and the following requirements. ( 1 ) The applicant must be a farm owner, family farm partnership, family farm corporation, or an association of farmers engaged in agricultural or aquacultural farming operations whose farming operations demonstrate a need for on-farm labor housing and who will own the housing and operate it on a nonprofit basis.
( 2 ) The applicant must agree to use the labor housing to engage in the farming operations of the individual farm owner applicant, or in the farming operations of its members if it is a family farm corporation or partnership, or an association of farmers.
( 3 ) The applicant must, as determined by the Agency, be unable to provide the necessary housing from the applicant's own resources and be unable to obtain credit from any other source upon terms and conditions which the applicant could reasonably be expected to fulfill. If the applicant is an association of farmers or family farm corporation or partnership, the individual members, individually and jointly, must be unable to provide the necessary housing by utilizing their own resources and be unable, by pledging their personal liability, to obtain other credit that would enable them to provide housing for farm workers at rental rates they can afford to pay. The individual resources of family farm corporation or partnership members with less than a 10 percent corporate or partnership interest should not be considered when determining if the applicant can obtain credit elsewhere.
( b ) The Agency may make an exception to the requirement that an individual farm owner, family farm corporation, family farm partnership or an association of farmers be unable to obtain the necessary credit elsewhere when all of the following conditions exist: ( 1 ) There is a housing need in the area for domestic farmworkers who are migrants and the applicant will provide such housing; and
( 2 ) There are no qualified state or political subdivisions or public or private nonprofit organizations available, or likely to become available within 12 months of the application, that are willing and able to provide the housing.
( c ) When an applicant is determined eligible under paragraph (b) of this section, the interest rate for such loans will be determined in accordance with 7 CFR part 1810, subpart A.
( d ) On-farm labor housing that consists of buildings with less than three units is not subject to the requirement that five percent of the units be constructed as fully accessible units, as described in § 3560.60(d).
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Kohlberg Capital Corporation
(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the
“Report”), I, Dayl W. Pearson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, 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
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
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:
      March 16, 2009
                
                
                
                By:
                
                /
      S / Dayl W.
      PearsonDayl
      W. PearsonPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)