alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

GARY LEE SEYMOUR,

Plaintiff,

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

RICKY D. DIXON,

Defendant.

/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Based on the parties’ joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice (Doc. 102), 

it is ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and the Clerk shall close the case file.

DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of April, 2023.

__________________________________

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 103 Filed 04/11/23 Page 1 of 1
27.201 Patent and copyright infringement

liability.

27.201-1 General.

27.201-2 Contract clauses.

Parent topic: Subpart 27.2 - Patents and Copyrights
19.1304 Exclusions.       This subpart does not apply to-                                       (a)                    						            Requirements that can be satisfied through award to-                                                         (1)                          								                Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (see subpart  8.6); or                                                            (2)                          								                AbilityOne participating non-profit agencies for the blind or severely disabled (see subpart  8.7);                                                                             (b)                    						            Orders under indefinite-delivery contracts (see subpart 16.5). (But see 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F) for discretionary set-asides of orders);                                          (c)                    						            Orders against Federal Supply Schedules (see subpart 8.4). (But see 8.405-5 for discretionary set-asides of orders);                                          (d) Requirements currently being performed by an 8(a) participant or requirements SBA has accepted for performance under the authority of the 8(a) program, unless SBA has consented to release the requirements from the 8(a) program; or                                          (e) Requirements for commissary or exchange resale items.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 19.13 - Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Program
#### Jose Luis Garcia SERRANO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-71127.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*461Submitted Aug. 20, 2007.*

Filed Aug. 24, 2007.

Rhoda Wilkinson Domingo, Esq., Law Offices of Rhoda W. Domingo, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.

David V. Bernal, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, KLEINFELD and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

We have reviewed the response to the court’s March 29, 2007 order to show cause, respondent’s opposed motion to dismiss in part and for summary disposition in part, and opposition and reply thereto.

With respect to petitioners Jose Luis Garcia Serrano, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], and Margarita Villa, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], we conclude that petitioners have failed to raise a color-able constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction. Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction as to petitioners Jose Luis Garcia Serrano and Margarita Villa is granted. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); *Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); *Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft,*277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir.2002); *Torres-Aguilar v. INS,*246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001).

Additionally, with respect to the motion for summary disposition as to the *462remaining petitioners: Margarita Garcia Villa, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], and Andrea Garcia Villa, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], a review of the administrative record demonstrates that petitioners have presented no evidence that they have a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). *See Molina-Estrada v. INS,*293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2002). The Board of Immigration Appeals therefore correctly concluded that, as a matter of law, that these two petitioners were ineligible for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DOUGLAS LOWERY, JR., 

SRCJ Inmate No. 99004947,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:19cv3756-MCR-EMT

SHERIFF BOB JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

O R D E R

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

Report and Recommendation dated October 28, 2019. ECF No. 3. 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). I have 

made a de novo determination of all timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 

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

adopted.

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. 3:19cv3756-MCR-EMT

2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as malicious 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1).

3. The clerk will enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of December 2019.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### §§ 457.156-457.157 [Reserved]
§ 51.625 U.S. No. 2. “U.S. No. 2” consists of grapefruit which meet the following requirements: ( a ) Basic requirements: ( 1 ) Discoloration: Not more than two-thirds of the surface, in the aggregate, may be affected by discoloration. (See § 51.638.);
( 2 ) Fairly firm;
( 3 ) Mature;
( 4 ) Not more than slightly misshapen;
( 5 ) Not more than slightly rough texture;
( 6 ) Slightly colored; and
( 7 ) Similar varietal characteristics.
( b ) Free from: ( 1 ) Bruises;
( 2 ) Decay;
( 3 ) Growth cracks;
( 4 ) Unhealed skin breaks; and
( 5 ) Wormy fruit.
( c ) Free from serious damaged caused by: ( 1 ) Ammoniation;
( 2 ) Buckskin;
( 3 ) Caked melanose;
( 4 ) Dryness or mushy condition;
( 5 ) Green spots;
( 6 ) Hail;
( 7 ) Oil spots;
( 8 ) Scab;
( 9 ) Scale;
( 10 ) Scars;
( 11 ) Skin breakdown;
( 12 ) Sprayburn;
( 13 ) Sprouting;
( 14 ) Sunburn;
( 15 ) Thorn scratches; and
( 16 ) Other means.
( d ) For tolerances see § 51.628.
[85 FR 68423, Oct. 29, 2020]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 4:20MC4-MW/MAF

BRENDA SMITH, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

and Recommendation. ECF No. 6. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 6, is accepted and adopted as this

Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Plaintiff’s claims are 

DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with court orders pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 41.1 and for want of 

Case 4:20-mc-00004-MW-MAF Document 7 Filed 04/09/21 Page 1 of 2
2

prosecution.” The Clerk shall close the file.

SO ORDERED on April 9, 2021.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-mc-00004-MW-MAF Document 7 Filed 04/09/21 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

# AGENCY:

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

HHS gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of employees from Revere Copper and Brass, Detroit, Michigan, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On October 6, 2010, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

All Atomic Weapons Employer employees who worked at Revere Copper and Brass, Detroit, Michigan, from July 24, 1943 through December 31, 1954, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.

                        This designation became effective on November 5, 2010, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384*l*                        (14)(C). Hence, beginning on November 5, 2010, members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, became members of the Special Exposure Cohort.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Interim Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to                         *DCAS@CDC.GOV.*

John Howard,

Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. 2010-30203 Filed 11-30-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:02cr34-SPM

MICHAEL WHITE,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3582

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant Michael White’s motion

to reduce sentence under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c) and the retroactive crack cocaine

amendment.

Upon review, the Court finds that Defendant is not entitled to a sentence

reduction. Application of the amendment results in no change to Defendant’s

sentencing range, which was determined by the career offender enhancement. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion for reduction of sentence

(doc. 34) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of May, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cr-00034-MCR Document 35 Filed 05/28/08 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2495 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2495

    To authorize the National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. to establish a 
 memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor slaves 
 and other persons that fought for independence, liberty, and justice 
                for all during the American Revolution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 3, 2006

 Mr. Dodd (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Obama, 
Mr. Allen, and Mrs. Dole) introduced the following bill; which was read 
  twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To authorize the National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. to establish a 
 memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor slaves 
 and other persons that fought for independence, liberty, and justice 
                for all during the American Revolution.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Liberty Memorial Act''.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL LIBERTY MEMORIAL.

    (a) Authorization.--The National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. may 
establish the National Liberty Memorial (referred to in this Act as the 
``Memorial'') on the Federal land described in subsection (b) to 
honor--
            (1) the thousands of persons of African descent that 
        volunteered as free persons or were compelled as slaves during 
        the American Revolution to--
                    (A) serve as soldiers and sailors; or
                    (B) provide civilian assistance;
            (2) the men, women, and children that fled bondage or filed 
        petitions with courts and legislatures seeking liberty; and
            (3) other people of the United States, including whites and 
        members of Indian tribes, that advocated for liberty, justice, 
        and citizenship for persons of African descent.
    (b) Description of Land.--The Federal land referred to in 
subsection (a) is the portion of Constitution Gardens, located on the 
south side of Constitution Lake and west of the island, that was 
selected as the site for the memorial authorized under section 1 of 
Public Law 99-558 (40 U.S.C. 1003 note; 100 Stat. 3144).
    (c) Applicable Law.--The Memorial shall be established in 
accordance with chapter 89 of title 40, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
# 42.709-7 Contract clause.

Use the clause at 52.242-3, Penalties for *Unallowable Costs*, in all *solicitations* and contracts over $800,000 except fixed-price contracts without cost incentives or any firm-fixed-price contract for the purchase of *commercial products* or *commercial services*. Generally, covered contracts are those which contain one of the clauses at 52.216-7, 52.216-16, or 52.216-17, or a similar clause from an *executive agency*’s supplement to the FAR.

**Parent topic:**42.709 Penalties for Unallowable Costs.
#### § 501.2 Admission.

Admission to the Research Center during “off duty” hours shall be restricted to the main arteries and any deviation therefrom by individuals shall be limited to authorized individuals who may be required to sign a register and display identification documents when requested by a guard or other authorized individuals. “Off duty” hours will be posted at the Research Center. Admission during “duty” hours when the Center is closed to the public in emergency situations will be limited to authorized individuals who may be required to sign a register and display identification documents when requested by a guard or other authorized individual.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2638 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2638

        To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Methylhydroquinone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 25, 2006

  Mr. Frist (for himself and Mr. Alexander) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Methylhydroquinone.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. 2-METHYLHYDROQUINONE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.29.09      2-                  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Methylhydroquinon                                                  31/2009
                         e (CAS No. 95-71-
                         6) (provided for
                         in subheading
                         2907.29.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 SEC RELEASE NO. 33-8124  I, T. Scott Conley, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that: (1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of O2 Secure Wireless, Inc.; (2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; (4) The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and (c) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; (5) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and (6) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. Dated: August 14, 2006/s/ T. Scott ConleyT. Scott Conley, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer   {A0032169.DOC}
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

BRANDON R. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:20-cv-168-AW-GRJ

CAMPUS LODGE GAINESVILLE, 

Defendant.

______________________________/

SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOTICE

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment. ECF No. 19. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is advised of the 

following with respect to the motion. The Court will decide the motion on

the basis of the motion, the response, and any evidentiary materials filed by 

the parties. Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment and any supporting evidentiary materials (e.g., Plaintiff’s sworn 

counter-affidavit, other witnesses’ sworn counter-affidavits, depositions, 

exhibits, etc.) must be filed with the Clerk on or before April 26, 2021.

If the Court grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, such 

decision would be a final decision of the Court in his favor. As a result of 

such final decision, there would be no trial or other proceedings in this case 

on the claims presented therein, and Plaintiff would likely be precluded 

Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 20 Filed 04/06/21 Page 1 of 2
2

from later litigating this matter or any related matters. Therefore, Plaintiff is 

further advised: (1) failing to respond to the summary judgment motion will 

indicate that the motion is not opposed; (2) all material facts asserted in the 

motion will be considered admitted unless controverted by proper 

evidentiary materials (e.g., Plaintiff’s sworn counter-affidavit, other 

witnesses’ sworn counter-affidavits, depositions, exhibits, etc.); and (3) 

Plaintiff may not rely solely on the allegations of the issue pleadings (e.g., 

complaint, answer, etc.) in opposing the summary judgment motion. 

Griffith v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d 822,825 (11th Cir. 1985).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff must file a response Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment, ECF No. 19, on or before April 26, 2021. Plaintiff must 

abide by the provisions of Local Rule 56.1, and any response must 

be no longer than 25 pages, excluding exhibits.

DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of April 2021.

s/Gary R. Jones GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 20 Filed 04/06/21 Page 2 of 2
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 5:95cr5029LAC

ELIAS RAYAS MEJIA

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on January 24, 2006

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION TO ELIMINATE ENHANCEMENTS AND REDUCE

SENTENCE 

Filed byDEFENDANT PRO SE on1/4/06 Doc.# 310

RESPONSES:

BY GOVERNMENT on1/24/06 Doc.# 312

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 30th day of 

January, 2006, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) Apprendi, Blakely, Booker and Fanfan are not retroactive. 

 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 5:95-cr-05029-LC-GRJ Document 313 Filed 01/30/06 Page 1 of 1