alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 29, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-10213 Summary Calendar

BARNEY JOE DONALSON, JR., Petitioner-Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CV-143

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Barney Joe Donalson, Jr., a/k/a Damon Downs, Texas prisoner # 423754, has received permission to appeal the district court’s imposition of sanctions against him. To the extent that he challenges the dismissal as frivolous of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, he has not received permission to do this and we will not consider these claims. Donalson asserts that the district court erred in ordering him to pay $100 because he has been deprived of the ability toNo. 04-10213 -2- use his prison funds. He has not established that the district court abused its discretion in imposing such a sanction.
See Crowe v. Smith , 151 F.3d 217, 226 (5th Cir. 1998). Donalson also challenges the district court’s injunction barring him from filing a lawsuit, civil action, or habeas corpus petition in the Northern District of Texas or in any other court where the case could be removed or transferred to the Northern District of Texas. “[T]he imposition of sanctions must not result in total, or even significant, preclusion of access to the
courts.” Thomas v. Capital Sec. Services, Inc. , 836 F.2d 866, 882 n.23 (5th Cir. 1988)(en banc). We have found no authority approving a blanket prohibition on all filings in the district
court. Rather than remanding the case for modification of the sanctions order, however, acting under our general supervisory power, we MODIFY the sanctions imposed by the district court and ORDER that: Donalson is barred from filing in the Northern District of Texas any document that attempts to challenge the commencement day of his federal sentence vis à vis his potential release from state custody on mandatory supervision. This provision augments the earlier sanction requiring Donalson to obtain permission to file any initial pleading in the district courts subject to this court’s jurisdiction. See In re Downs , No. 95-50282 (5th Cir. June 27, 1995)(unpublished). The sanctions imposed are therefore AFFIRMED as MODIFIED.
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:97cr111 LAC

YVEMYRTH ST. HILAIRE

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on APRIL 10, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF JUDGE’S ORDER OF MARCH

20, 2008 (#353), DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF HIS

SENTENCE AND SUPERVISED RELEASE, PURSUANT TO §3582(c)(2) 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on4/10/08 Doc.# 355

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 11th day of

April, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

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

Copies sent to:

Case 3:97-cr-00111-LC-MD Document 356 Filed 04/11/08 Page 1 of 1
§ 51.1267 Basis for calculating percentages. ( a ) When the numerical count is marked on the container or when pears are packed in a container to weigh 5 pounds or less, percentages shall be calculated on the basis of count.
( b ) When the minimum diameter or minimum and maximum diameters are marked on a container packed to weigh more than 5 pounds or when the pears are jumbled in a container packed to weigh more than 5 pounds, percentages shall be calculated on the basis of weight or an equivalent basis.
March 28, 2015

Ms. Nia Daniels

Program Analyst

Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Ave. S.W.

Washington, DC 20591

Dear Ms. Daniels:

Thank you for you correspondence regarding my request: Public docket No. FAA-2015-

00439. I have responded with the requested information and am asking that you proceed 

with my request for exemption. The additional information requested is provided on the 

following pages.

Please feel free to contact me at 530-448-6105 should you require anything else to 

proceed.

Sincerely,

Steven R Mitchell

eMedia Films – Lake Tahoe

Steve Mitchell – eMedia Films – Lake Tahoe

Public Docket No. FAA-2015-0439
Public Docket No. FAA-2015-0439

Regarding your request for additional information:

Why would this request be in the public interest, and how would it benefit the 

public as a whole: 

1) Granting this exemption would allow a qualified, experienced, and safety minded 

operator ( eMedia Films ) to provide a valued & needed service to the Reno / 

Tahoe community.

2) This valued service would be more affordable and far more safe than filming from 

a manned aircraft.

Furthermore:

As a matter of good public relations we will be working with the various local chambers 

of commerce and Visitors Authorities, and schools to educate the general public about 

UAS safety and operations.

We would also be working with the various local chambers of commerce and Visitors 

Authorities to educate the general public domestically and internationally to the beauty of 

the region and the environmental issues facing Nevada, California and specifically Lake 

Tahoe.

Future plans include adding digital 3D mapping, and making these services available to 

Universities and other research entities.

Your request for additional information, views, or arguments to support the 

request:

1) Already Provided “Steve Mitchell – eMedia Films: UAS 34 point Pre-Flight 

Check List.” -Provided with the original exemption request. ( also enclosed)

2) Already Provided “Steve Mitchell – eMedia Films: Flight Procedures & 

Rules” -Provided with the original exemption request. ( also enclosed)

3) DVD: Real Estate video example. This example shows what kind of UAS 

flying would typically be involved in this type of operation. The example is 

also online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocZEDe6xSTk

Please note: The online version is better video quality than the DVD.

4) In closing: I would just like to state that was very pleased to hear the FAA 

announcement that it recognizes the need for safe, legal commercial UAS 

operations in the U.S. and want to be a part of this important movement.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Steve Mitchell – eMedia Films – Lake Tahoe
§ 3560.403 Account servicing. ( a ) *Payment due dates.* Loan or other payments due to the Agency are due on the first day of each month unless otherwise established in the debt instrument or other agreement executed with the Agency.
( b ) *Payment application order.* Loan payments will be applied to the borrower's account in the following order of priority: ( 1 ) Amortized audit receivables. (*i.e.*, amounts due to the Agency, over a period of time, as a result of a finding from an audit or other monitoring activity.)
( 2 ) Unamortized audit receivables. (*i.e.*, amounts due to the Agency, in a lump sum payment, as a result of a finding from an audit or other monitoring activity.)
( 3 ) Late fees. (*i.e.*, amounts due to the Agency as a result of late payments.)
( 4 ) Amortized recoverable costs. (*i.e.*, amounts due to the Agency, over a period of time, as a result of Agency payments made on behalf of a borrower for housing project related expenses such as taxes or insurance premiums.)
( 5 ) Unamortized recoverable costs. (*i.e.*, amounts due to the Agency, in a lump sum payment, as a result of Agency payments made on behalf of a borrower for housing project related expenses such as taxes or insurance premiums.)
( 6 ) Overage. (*i.e.*, amounts due to the Agency as a result of a tenant's tenant contribution being higher than basic rent.)
( 7 ) Interest. (*i.e.*, amounts due to the Agency as a result of scheduled interest on a loan and as a result of interest charged on unpaid delinquent principal amounts.)
( 8 ) Principal. (*i.e.*, amounts due to the Agency as the loan principal.)
( 9 ) Advance payments. (Any funds remaining after disbursement of a payment to all other payment priorities will be applied to the borrower's account as an advance regular payment unless a borrower specifically designates, in writing, another application.)
( c ) *Late fees.* If payments on a borrower's account, under PASS, are more than $15 delinquent after the close of business on the 10th day after the payment due date, a late fee will be charged to the borrower's account. ( 1 ) Late fees charged to a borrower's account will equal 6 percent of the total regular payments due as specified in any promissory notes, assumption agreements, or reamortization agreements related to the borrower's account.
( 2 ) Late fees are a borrower expense and must not be paid from housing project funds.
( 3 ) The Agency may waive late fees for circumstances beyond a borrower's control and when a waiver is determined by the Agency to be in the best financial interest of the Federal Government.
( d ) *Interest on unpaid overdue principal.* On the first day of the month following a payment due date, the Agency will charge interest at the note rate on any unpaid principal payment due according to the loan's amortization schedule (*i.e.*, interest will be charged on delinquent principal). The interest charged on the unpaid principal payment due will be charged to the borrower in addition to the scheduled interest due on payments according to the loan's amortization schedule.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

CAREY DUBBERLY,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO. 5:03cv280-SPM/EMT

JAMES R. MCDONOUGH,

Respondent.

_________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s report

and recommendation (doc. 28) dated April 27, 2006. Petitioner was furnished a

copy and he has filed an objection (doc. 19). Pursuant to Title 28, United States

Code, Section 636(b)(1), I find that the report and recommendation should be

adopted and that Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition should be denied. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal court may grant habeas corpus relief

only if the state court adjudication

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an 

unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as

determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable 

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State

court proceeding.

Case 5:03-cv-00280-SPM-EMT Document 20 Filed 02/23/07 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

CASE NO. 5:03cv280-SPM/EMT

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). As explained in the magistrate judge’s well-reasoned report

and recommendation, the state court adjudication is consistent with Supreme

Court precedents and based on reasonable factual findings. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 18) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 6) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of February, 2007. 

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-00280-SPM-EMT Document 20 Filed 02/23/07 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 87-05023-RV

JAMES WILLIAM MUNSON, a/k/a

JOHN MUNSON 

Defendant.

__________________________________/

ORDER

This cause came before the court on the government’s petition for a violation

of supervised release (doc. 184), and on the defendant’s motion to modify or

delete conditions of conditional discharge (doc. 180). A hearing was held in this

matter on October 20, 2010. After considering the arguments presented during the

hearing, and after my review of the facts of this case and otherwise being well

acquainted with its very long history, I have determined --- and the government, the

defendant, defense counsel, and the probation department all agree --- that

nothing useful will be accomplished by continued supervision of the defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant’s supervised release is hereby TERMINATED,

and the Clerk is directed to close this matter. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of October, 2010.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge
§ 3201.97 Sun care products. ( a ) *Definition.* Products including sunscreens, sun blocks, and suntan lotions that are topical products that absorb or reflect the sun's ultraviolet radiation to protect the skin.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 53 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than November 19, 2013, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased sun care products. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for products to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased sun care products.
[77 FR 69386, Nov. 19, 2012]
32.409-3 Security, supervision, and

covenants.

(a) If advance payments are approved, the contracting officer shall enter into an agreement with the

contractor covering special accounts and suitable covenants protecting the Government’s interest

(see 32.411). This requirement generally applies under all statutory authorities, but modified

requirements applicable to certain specific cases are prescribed in paragraphs (e) through (g) of this

section.

(b) The agency shall-

(1) Ensure that the amount of advance payments does not exceed the contractor’s financial needs,

and

(2) Closely supervise the contractor’s withdrawal of funds from special accounts in which the

advance payments are deposited.

(c) In the terms of the agreement, the contracting officer should provide for a paramount lien in

favor of the Government. This lien may supplement or replace other security requirements. The lien

should cover-

(1) Supplies being acquired;

(2) Any credit balance in the special account in which advance payments are deposited; and

(3) All property that the contractor acquires for performing the contract, except to the extent to

which the Government otherwise has valid title to the property.

(d) Security requirements vary to fit the circumstances of different cases. Minimum security

requirements are covered by the clauses prescribed in the contract. The contracting officer may

supplement these as necessary in each case for protection of the Government’s interest. Examples of

additional security terms are-

(1) Personal or corporate endorsements or guarantees;

(2) Pledges of collateral;

(3) Subordination or standby of other indebtedness;

(4) Controls or limitations on profit distributions, salaries, bonuses or commissions, rentals and

royalties, capital expenditures, creation of liens, retirement of stock or debt, and creation of

additional obligations; and

(5) Advance payment bonds (rarely required).

(e) In an advance payment agreement with an instrumentality of the Government, a State, a local

government, or an agency or instrumentality of a State or local government, the contracting officer

may omit the requirement for deposit of the advances in a special account, if the official approving

the advance determines that other adequate security exists to protect the Government’s interest.
(f) The requirements of this 32.409-3 do not apply when using letters of credit if an agency’s

procedures provide for-

(1) The use under a cost-reimbursement contract of Federal funds deposited in the contractor’s

account at a financial institution (without the contractor acquiring title to the funds); and

(2) The security of such deposit of public moneys in accordance with governing regulations of the

Treasury Department.

(g) If a separate special account is not required; e.g., advance payment by a letter of credit, an

agency may require a special account for an individual case, or classes of cases, if the circumstances

warrant.

Parent topic: 32.409 Contracting officer action.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         867,658
<SECURITIES>                                 2,058,517
<RECEIVABLES>                                  178,318
<ALLOWANCES>                                   122,350
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,534,846
<PP&E>                                      38,595,857
<DEPRECIATION>                              13,184,260
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,004,960
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,247,309
<BONDS>                                     27,442,267
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,004,960
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,105,472
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,191,989
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,500,977
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,247,944
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (835,438)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (15.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DAVID T. MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 1:20cv226-MW/GRJ

RUBY TUESDAY,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

and Recommendation, ECF No. 5. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

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

opinion. This case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of Florida, Jacksonville division. The Clerk shall take all necessary steps to 

effect the transfer and close the file. 

SO ORDERED on November 4, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00226-MW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 11/04/20 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ROBERT JOHNSON,

D.O.C. #L10847,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv410-MW/MAF

CAPTAIN A. MASSEY,

et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/ 

ORDER REJECTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND

REMANDING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Recommendation, ECF No. 48, and has also reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s objections, 

ECF No. 49. In his objections, Plaintiff points to his sworn response to Defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment, which provided that the chemical agent caused him 

to inhale carbon monoxide, to feel a burning sensation in his eyes and on his skin, 

and to experience loss of sight, nasal discharge, and skin irritation for weeks. See

ECF No. 49 at 2; ECF No. 47 at 28.1

 Accordingly, this evidence creates a question 

of material fact with respect to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim. However, there 

1 Defendant certified that his response to the motion for summary judgment was true and 

correct, ECF No. 47 at 42, and this Court errs on the side of caution in construing his response as 

a sworn response. 

Case 4:20-cv-00410-MW-MAF Document 51 Filed 03/07/22 Page 1 of 2
2

may be issues as to Plaintiff’s damages with respect to this claim, which the 

Magistrate Judge will address on remand. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 48, is rejected and this case is 

REMANDED to the Magistrate Judge for further review consistent with this Order. 

SO ORDERED on March 7, 2022.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00410-MW-MAF Document 51 Filed 03/07/22 Page 2 of 2
(September 5, 1980)

#### In the Matter of Claire M. Wing et al., Respondents, v Irwin Zucker, Appellant, et al., Respondents. In

In a proceeding to invalidate petitions designating Irwin Zucker as a candidate in the Democratic Party primary election to be held on September 9, 1980 for the public office of Member of the State Senate from the 20th Senatorial District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 18, 1980, which, *inter alia,*granted the application. By order dated September 4, 1980 this court remanded the matter to Special Term to make appropriate specific findings of fact with respect to its invalidation of appellant’s designating petitions and held the appeal in abeyance in the interim. Special Term has now complied. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The findings of fact are sufficient to sustain Special Term’s determination. Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Mangano and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
#### § 3570.92 Grant agreement.

Form RD 3570-3 is a Grant Agreement which contains the procedures for making and servicing grants made under this part. Any property acquired or improved with CFG funds may have use and disposition conditions which apply to the property as provided by 2 CFR 200 as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 400 in effect at this time and as may be subsequently modified.

[79 FR 76013, Dec. 19, 2014]