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

Case No. 1:20cv203-RH-GRJ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER JON PERGROSSI,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:20cv203-RH-GRJ

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation, ECF No. 4. No objections have been filed. 

The report and recommendation addresses multiple lawsuits all filed by the 

plaintiff and all lacking an arguable basis in law or fact. The report and 

recommendation concludes this case and others should be dismissed. This order 

accepts the report and recommendation and adopts it as the court’s opinion on the 

issue of dismissal.

The report and recommendation also concludes that, as a sanction, 

conditions should be imposed on the plaintiff’s ability to file further lawsuits. This 

Case 1:20-cv-00203-RH-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/22/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 1:20cv203-RH-GRJ

order does not impose a sanction but instead leaves the issue of sanctions to the 

district judge presiding over the first-filed case, No. 1:20cv181. 

IT IS ORDERED:

The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The complaint is dismissed under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).” The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on September 22, 2020.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00203-RH-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/22/20 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         27
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  169
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               196
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 196
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       694,537
<OTHER-SE>                                     (694,341)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   196
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

I, Anthony Kai Yiu Lo, Co-Chief Executive Officer and principal financial officer of Shanghai Century Acquisition Corporation (the
Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarters ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 14, 2007



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Anthony Kai Yiu Lo     
|Anthony Kai Yiu Lo         
|Principal financial officer
Case 4:99-cv-00020-WS-WCS Document 82 Filed 05/10/01 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:99-cv-00020-WS-WCS Document 82 Filed 05/10/01 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                            5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  TELS
CORPORATION  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                         JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                     7,656
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            372,878
<ALLOWANCES>                                              31,600
<INVENTORY>                                              131,848
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         553,887
<PP&E>                                                 1,972,203
<DEPRECIATION>                                        (1,558,767)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         1,192,001
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  1,480,886
<BONDS>                                                  387,455
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                  83,835
<OTHER-SE>                                              (760,175)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           1,192,001
<SALES>                                                1,324,354
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       1,327,688
<CGS>                                                    286,032
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          1,230,547
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        65,975
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           31,166
<INCOME-TAX>                                                (100)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       31,066
<DISCONTINUED>                                           (15,899)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                              15,167
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               0.00


</TABLE>
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**OF      BNL FINANCIAL CORPORATION**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

|   | 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material                respects the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ERNEST R. GIBSON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-391-AW-MAF

WARDEN D.D. DUNCAN,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I have considered the magistrate judge’s August 6, 2020, Report and 

Recommendation, ECF No. 4, to which no objections have been filed. The Report 

and Recommendation is approved, adopted, and incorporated into this order. The 

clerk will take necessary steps to transfer this case to the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division. The clerk will then close 

the file.

SO ORDERED on December 12, 2020. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00391-AW-MAF Document 7 Filed 12/14/20 Page 1 of 1
#### Aetna Life and Casualty Co., Appellant, v Thaddeus Choinski, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of James Choinski, an Infant, et al., Respondents.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs, on the memorandum at Special Term, Ostrowski, J. (see, also, *McGroarty v Great Amer. Ins. Co.,*36 NY2d 358, 363; *Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co. v Christopher,*66 AD2d 148, 151-152). (Appeal from judgment of Erie Supreme Court—declaratory judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Witmer, JJ.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CURTIS ALEXANDER MOHAMMED, 

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:19cv3642/LAC/EMT

SERGEANT NICOLE JORDAN,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the chief magistrate judge’s 

Report and Recommendation dated December 19, 2019 (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff has 

been 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). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined it 

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted 

and incorporated by reference in this order.
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:19cv3642/LAC/EMT

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff=s failure to 

comply with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of January, 2020.

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

s/L.A. Collier
# L_2021277EN.01002801.xml

| 2.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 277/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 277/28

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/1261

of 26 July 2021

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Olio di Roma’ (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) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Olio di Roma’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Olio di Roma’ 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 ‘Olio di Roma’ 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 ‘Olio di Roma’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Olio di Roma’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.5. – Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oil, 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, 26 July 2021.

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 112, 30.3.2021, p. 12.

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

---
#### Joan Lappert, Appellant, v. James Lappert, Jr., Respondent.

Order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 18, 1966, reversed, without costs; defendant’s motion denied, without costs and without prejudice to renewal of the motion insofar as it was to delete decretal paragraph “6” of the judgment of separation in this action; and plaintiff’s cross motion remanded to Special Term for a determination on the merits. Defendant husband sought to strike out of the judgment of separation the decretal paragraphs “2”, “4” and “6” (“2” and “4” relating to alimony and support and “6” relating to designation of attorneys in fact for service of papers on him in this action). He contended that the judgment was superseded by a valid Mexican divorce obtained by the plaintiff wife. The judgment of separation contains a provision that: “The requirements afore-mentioned for alimony and support shall not be affected by any decree of divorce which may be obtained by either of the parties hereto against the other.” The parties entered into a separation agreement subsequent to the entry of the judgment, but prior to the commencement of the Mexican divorce proceeding; and the ensuing Mexican divorce decree approved and incorporated the separation judgment and agreement. However, the agreement provided that it was not to be merged in any divorce decree and that the separation judgment was incorporated into the agreement and was to be obeyed by the parties. In our opinion, the circumstances herein take this case out of the general rule that the alimony provisions of a judgment of separation are superseded by a subsequent valid foreign divorce. Here the judgment provided that it was to be unaffected by a subsequent divorce decree and the Mexican court, in conformity with this provision, by approving the separation agreement which incorporated the judgment of separation, left the parties to their rights under the judgment and the agreement with regard to alimony and support. While we agree with the defendant that the “survival clause” would have been ineffective to preclude a New York court or a foreign court having personal jurisdiction of the parties from modifying the alimony provisions of the judgment in a subsequent divorce proceeding, the fact is that the Mexican court did not attempt to modify the judgment. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:94-cr-01009-MP-AK

ALBERT THOMAS MADRID,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 972, Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,

by Albert Thomas Madrid. Defendant is represented by counsel, who has served the motion on

counsel for the Government.

 Pursuant to the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, the Court has reviewed the

motion, and the Government will be required to file an answer or other appropriate response. If

appropriate, the Government shall include the initial brief or other briefs from the direct appeal

and may rely on the statement of facts presented there. Defendant may respond to the

Government's arguments within the time set by this order, but he is not required to do so. 

Upon receipt of the Government's arguments and Defendant's response, if any, the Court

will review the file to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If an evidentiary

hearing is not required, the Court will dispose of the petition as justice requires pursuant to §

2255 Rule 8(a).

The Government should also address the issues raised by Madrid’s Notice of Joinder,

including whether they are properly before the Court for consideration. Doc. 992.

Case 1:94-cr-01009-MP-GRJ Document 998 Filed 07/15/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:94-cr-01009-MP-AK

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The clerk shall furnish, by certified mail return receipt requested, a copy of this order

to the United States Attorney for this district, who shall file an answer or other appropriate

pleading by September 12, 2005.

2. If review of the PSR is necessary, the Probation Office shall allow counsel for the

Government to review the PSR upon request.

3. Defendant shall have until October 12, 2005, to file a response, if desired.. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of July, 2005.

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:94-cr-01009-MP-GRJ Document 998 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 2
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER JON PERGROSSI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20-cv-193-AW-GRJ

DONALD J. TRUMP, as President of the 

United States,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is one of the many frivolous pro se cases Christopher Jon Pergrossi has 

recently filed in this court. I have considered the magistrate judge’s omnibus order 

to show cause and report and recommendation. ECF No. 4. No objections were 

filed.

*

I agree with the magistrate judge that the action is frivolous and has wasted 

court resources. I note that Pergrossi filed an amended complaint after the report and 

recommendation issued, ECF No. 6, but it, too, is frivolous. 

On the issue of sanctions, the judge in the first-filed case found it to be a close 

call but did not impose sanctions. See No. 1:20-cv-181-MW-GRJ, ECF No. 7. I will 

likewise not impose sanctions at this time.

 

*

In another of his cases, Pergrossi filed an objection to the omnibus Report 

and Recommendation. See No. 1:20-cv-181-MW-GRJ, ECF No. 6. Although he did 

not file that objection (or any objection) in this case, I have nonetheless considered 

de novo the issues raised in that objection. 

Case 1:20-cv-00193-AW-GRJ Document 7 Filed 10/06/20 Page 1 of 2
2

The clerk will enter judgment that says, “This case is DISMISSED without 

leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).” The clerk will close the file.

SO ORDERED on October 5, 2020. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00193-AW-GRJ Document 7 Filed 10/06/20 Page 2 of 2
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

RYAN COVEMAKER, DC #S05952, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 2D18-2636 STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed September 25, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Charles Sniffen, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Clark E. Green, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SLEET, SALARIO, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

FAROUK MEHIO, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v. KEITH D. SONNTAG, D.D.S., M.S, Defendant–Appellee. No. 11-4209 (D.C. No. 2:11-CV-00552-SA) (D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before LUCERO , O’BRIEN , and MATHESON , Circuit Judges.

Farouk Mehio filed a pro se complaint in federal district court alleging that his dentist, Keith Sonntag, improperly charged hi m for dental work. In screening the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B), the district court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and accordi ngly dismissed. Mehio now appeals. Exercising

* The case is unanimously ordered subm itted without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctri nes of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disf avors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 8, 2012

Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court-2- jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C. § 1291, we affirm.

We review de novo a district court’ s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Tsosie v. United Stat es, 452 F.3d 1161, 1163 (10th Cir. 2006). Construed liberally, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), Mehio’s complaint appears to assert a common law fraud claim. Such a claim does not establish federal question jurisdiction because it does not “aris[ e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties

of the United States.” 28 U.S. C. § 1331. Nor does the comp laint satisfy the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. Mehi o admits that all parties are domiciled in Utah and does not seek $75,000 in relief. S ee 28 U.S.C. § 1332. On appeal, Mehio argues that the di strict court prematurely dismissed his complaint. But 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) directs that a district court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” Given the clea r jurisdictional defect, the district court correctly held that it could not grant relief. For the foregoing reasons, the ju dgment of the district court is AFFIRMED . We

DENY all pending motions as moot.

Entered for the Court

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge