alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### §§ 4279.151-4279.160 [Reserved]
Case No.: 3:20cv5935-MCR-HTC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LAVAROS DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5935-MCR-HTC

MARK INCH, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

O R D E R

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

and Recommendation dated January 14, 2021. ECF Doc. 9. Plaintiff was furnished 

with a copy of the Report and Recommendation and was afforded an opportunity to 

file an objection 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 Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 9, is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

Case 3:20-cv-05935-MCR-HTC Document 22 Filed 06/10/21 Page 1 of 2
Case No.: 3:20cv5935-MCR-HTC

2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Mark Inch, Warden Clemmons, A. 

Flores, J. Santiago, Nurse Dow (sic), Nurse Sing, and Dr. Rodriguez are 

DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim on which 

relief can be granted. 

3. Judgment is entered in favor of defendants Mark Inch, Warden 

Clemmons, A. Flores, J. Santiago, Nurse Dow (sic), Nurse Sing, and Dr. Rodriguez

on all claims. 

4. The case is remanded to the magistrate judge for further pretrial 

proceedings.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of June 2021.

 s/M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05935-MCR-HTC Document 22 Filed 06/10/21 Page 2 of 2
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50743

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ARMIN CASTILLO-MORALES, also known as Luis Sosa Morales,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:07-CR-25-5

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Armin Castillo-Morales was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute marijuana and was sentenced to 72 months

imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Castillo-Morales argues

that he was unfairly surprised by the inclusion of an aiding and abetting jury

instruction because his indictment did not charge him with aiding and abetting

under 18 U.S.C. § 2. He contends that the Government failed to give him notice

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 30, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50743

2

of an aiding and abetting charge but presented an aiding and abetting case,

which he did not appreciate until too late at the jury charge conference. He

argues that this unfair notice affected his ability to prepare his defense.

Although the indictment did not specifically charge aiding and abetting

expressly or by reference to 18 U.S.C. § 2, “[a]iding and abetting is not a separate

offense, but it is an alternative charge in every indictment, whether explicit or

implicit.” United States v. Neal, 951 F.2d 630, 633 (5th Cir. 1992). “Absent a

showing of unfair surprise, it is not an abuse of discretion to give an aiding and

abetting instruction.” Id.

Castillo-Morales has not made a showing of unfair surprise. The

indictment did not foreclose the possibility of conviction as an aider and abettor.

The evidence provided by Castillo-Morales in his own testimony that he carried

a backpack with food and water for the group was sufficient to prove that he

acted as an aider and abettor. Castillo-Morales should have anticipated that the

Government would request an instruction on aiding and abetting. See United

States v. Botello, 991 F.2d 189, 192 (5th Cir. 1993) (rejecting claim of unfair

surprise because indictment did not foreclose possibility of conviction as aider

and abettor and evidence supported aiding and abetting conviction). CastilloMorales admits in his brief that it is “undisputed that the evidence supports a

charge on aiding and abetting based on the Government’s cross-examination of

Castillo-Morales.” Castillo-Morales cannot claim unfair surprise when it was his

own testimony that prompted the Government to request the aiding and

abetting instruction. The district court did not abuse its discretion. Neal, 951

F.2d at 633.

AFFIRMED.
#### Robert Gaska, Appellant, v Keith Heller et al., Respondents.

[816 NYS2d 523]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated March 24, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff claims, inter alia, that on May 22, 2000, the defendant Keith Heller, while performing surgery on him at the defendant Long Island Jewish Medical Center, “engraved, carved and cut initials or characters into the plaintiffs body,” causing him to sustain injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment, inter alia, on the ground that the action sounded in medical malpractice and/or intentional tort and, therefore, was time-barred. In opposition, the plaintiff alleged that he was scarred in an area where a drainage tube leading from the surgical site in his neck was secured to his chest. The plaintiff also alleged that he was never advised prior to the surgery that there was a chance he “might be sewn or have staples in that area,” and have a scar on his chest as a result of the surgery on his neck.

“The distinction between ordinary negligence and malpractice turns on whether the acts or omissions complained of involve a matter of medical science or art requiring special skills not ordinarily possessed by lay persons or whether the conduct *946complained of can instead be assessed on the basis of the common everyday experience of the trier of the facts” *(Smith v Pasquarella,*201 AD2d 782, 783 [1994], quoting *Miller v Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp.,*95 AD2d 977, 978 [1983]).

The defendants established that the securing of the drainage tube which came from the surgical site was part of, and related to, the medical treatment rendered by Heller. Contrary to the plaintiff’s assertions, a lay jury would not be able to assess whether the method and manner utilized to secure the drainage tube to the plaintiffs chest was proper and necessary under the circumstances without the assistance of expert witnesses *(see Evangelista v Zolan,*247 AD2d 508, 509 [1998]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff’s complaint sounded in medical malpractice *(see Scott v Uljanov,*74 NY2d 673, 674-675 [1989]; *Evangelista v Zolan, supra; Rey v Park View Nursing Home,*262 AD2d 624 [1999]; *Fox v White Plains Med. Ctr.,*125 AD2d 538 [1986]; *Stanley v Lebetkin,*123 AD2d 854 [1986]; *Miller v Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp., supra),*and dismissed the complaint as time-barred. The plaintiff did not commence this action until March 2003, more than *2lh*years from May 22, 2000, when the complained-of conduct occurred *(see*CPLR 214-a).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Luciano, Lifson and Covello, JJ., concur.
Summary of Guaranty Contract
of Maximum Amount ( the “Contract”) Entered into by and between BAK
International Limited and Shenzhen Branch, China Citic Bank (the “Creditor”) in
February 2009

      


      Main
contents:

      Ø Guaranty Contract
number: 2009Shenyinsun Zuibaozi 001;

      Ø BAK International
Limited undertakes to assume joint and several liabilities for Shenzhen BAK
Battery Co., Ltd (the “Obligor”)’s indebtedness towards China
Citic Bank, and the maximum amount secured is RMB 150
million.

      Ø    Guaranty Responsibility: The guaranty
under this Contract shall be guaranty with joint and several liabilities. The
guarantor is obligated to pay off the debt in the event the obligor is unable to
pay off the debt (including the creditor declares the debt becomes mature in
advance to its original expiry date due to default of the obligor or the
guarantor).

      Ø    Scope of Guaranty: The guaranty shall cover
all of the loan principal, interest, penalty interest, breach of contract
compensation, damages, undertaking fee and all the expenses such as litigation
cost, lawyer’s fee, notification cost and public notice cost etc. which is
incurred to the Creditor in realizing its creditor’s right.

      Ø   Guaranty period: The
guaranty period is from the effective date of this Contract to two years after
the expiry of the term of the Credit Facility Agreement and relevant agreement
entered into under the Credit Facility Agreement.

      


      Headlines
of the articles omitted:

      Ø Termination and
explanation

      Ø Payment on
demand

      Ø   
Declaration and guaranty

      Ø Independent
guaranty

      Ø Fulfillment of the
responsibility and giving up of the right

      Ø Amendment of
Contract

      Ø Effectiveness and
Disputation settlement

      Ø Contract
period

      Ø Supplement
articles
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



## Document

Number: 

# 139 ) ll-E-9 9 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:08 AM Sheet 139 of 264P. 2 •94-5 *
Date sent : Fri , 1 1 Ju l 199 7 14:20:1 3 -040 0 From : MADELEIN E STRU M < STRUM.MADELEINE@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV > To : mproctor@rtp.pes.co m subject : informatio n abou t Classi c Moto r carriage s Toda yI spok e wit h Fran k

Echanique , wh o work

s wit h th e Stat e o f Florid a Departmen t o

f Environmenta l Protection . I aske d hi m whethe rClassi cMoto r Carriage s wa s stil l i n busines s (since ou rsurve yt o th e facilitywa s returne d t o me) . H e informe d m e that th e facilitywas n o longe ri n business .
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

HECTOR A. DEMONTALVO,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 3:20-cv-5948-MCR/MJF

RICKY D. DIXON 

Respondent.

_____________________________________/

ORDER

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

and Recommendation dated May 13, 2022. ECF No. 15. The parties were furnished 

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and were afforded an opportunity to file 

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). The Court 

has made a de novo determination of those portions to which an objection was made.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation and all objections thereto 

timely filed, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Case 3:20-cv-05948-MCR-MJF Document 17 Filed 07/19/22 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5948-MCR/MJF

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 15, is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, challenging the 

judgment of conviction and sentence in State of Florida v. Hector Adolfo 

DeMontalvo, Escambia County Circuit Court Case No. 2014-CF-3813, is DENIED.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of July 2022.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05948-MCR-MJF Document 17 Filed 07/19/22 Page 2 of 2
### San Joaquin Valley Public Records Requests 

### Air Pollution Control District Phone (559) 230- 6000 1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue, Fresno, CA 93726-0244 Fax (559) 230-6061 (559) 230-6000 www.Valleyair.org O ff

ice Use Onl y 

# PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FORM ATTENTION REQUESTOR: To expedite your request for District records, please fill out this form completely . Identify specifically the type of records you are requesting. Please limit your request to one facility or one site address for each request form fi led, and three requests items per form. Additional forms or pages can be used if requesting information for more than one facility or for rec ords not identified on this form. Requests should reasonably describe identifiable records prepared, owned, used, or retained by the Di strict. Staff is available to assist you in identifying those records in the District's possession. The District is not required by law to create a new record or list from an existing record. By submission of this form I hereby agree to reimburse the SJVUAPCD for the direct cos t of duplicating the requested records in accordance with Gov. Code Sec. 6253(b). 

### REQUESTOR INFORMATION NAME: DATE: COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP CODE: PHONE # FAX # E-MAIL: 

### DOCUMENTS REQUESTED ( 3 Items per form ) Permit Application(s) Site Inspection Report(s) All Records/General File Review Permit(s) to Operate (PTO) Source Test Report(s) Toxic Sources within 1/4 mi School Review Authorities to Construct (ATC) Air Monitoring Data Asbestos Notification(s)/Record(s) Engineering Evaluation(s) Complaints AB2588 “Hot Spots” Information Emissions Inventory Statement(s) Notice(s) of Violation (NOV) Other ( Describe below or on additional pages ): Health Risk Assessment(s) Notice(s) to Comply (NTC)

DATE OF DOCUMENTS REQUESTED: From: To: 

### REQUESTED FACILITY INFORMATION ( If Applicable ) FACILITY NAME: FACILITY I.D. NO. (if known) FACILITY ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP CODE: 

### METHOD OF DELIVERY (Check all that apply) Pick Up FAX (Maximum 30 Pages) Email (Maximum 5 MB) U.S. Mail CD/DVD Other _________________________________________ Inspection of records only, no copies required (District will contact you to setup an appointment for inspection) I request that the SJVUAPCD contact me prior to completing the requested records if the cost exceeds $___________ CONTROL NUMBER

PRR\07-08\PRR Form - Version #1 (9-17-07).xls
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

FRANCISCO DELAFLOR MORALES,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-533-AW-MAF

JEFFREY ROSEN1et al.,

Respondents.

_______________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Francisco Delaflor Morales petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging 

the lawfulness of his detention by the United States Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement. ECF No. 1. The magistrate judge has filed a Report and 

Recommendation (ECF No. 6), which recommends dismissal based on mootness. 

As the R&R points out, mail to Morales has been returned with an indication that 

Morales is no longer at the facility he reported as his address. It thus appears that the 

action is moot because Morales was either removed or released. And even if he were 

neither removed nor released, he has effectively abandoned his case by not keeping 

the court apprised of his current address. 

 

1 Among the respondents was United States Attorney General William Barr. 

ECF No. 1. Because the Attorney General was sued in his official capacity, his 

successor is automatically substituted as a party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

Case 4:20-cv-00533-AW-MAF Document 8 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 2
2

I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, and it 

is now incorporated into this order. The clerk will enter a judgment that says “The 

habeas petition is dismissed as moot.” The clerk will then close the file. 

SO ORDERED on January 6, 2021. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00533-AW-MAF Document 8 Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 2
#### § 65.185 Ingredient.

*Ingredient* means a component either in part or in full, of a finished retail food product.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 75498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30358]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Sec.  1301.33(a), Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on July 8, 2010, Agilent 
Technologies, 25200 Commercentre Drive, Lake Forest, California 92630-
8810, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration 
(DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of 
controlled substances listed in schedule II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phencyclidine (7471).......................  II
1-piperidinocyclohex-......................  II
anecarbonitrile (8603).....................
Benzoylecgonine (9180).....................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture small quantities of the listed 
controlled substances for use in diagnostic products.
    Agilent Technologies submitted this application because, effective 
May 14, 2010, Varian, Inc., located at 25200 Commercentre Drive, Lake 
Forest, California 92630-8810, became a wholly-owned subsidiary of 
Agilent Technologies. Varian, Inc.'s legal existence as a corporation 
and as a DEA registrant as a bulk manufacturer will eventually cease 
and Agilent Technologies will take over all of Varian Inc.'s activities 
with regard to controlled substances, requiring possession of a DEA 
registration as a bulk manufacturer issued to Agilent Technologies. 
Presently, Agilent Technologies' activities with regard to controlled 
substances will be exactly the same as performed by Varian, Inc.
    Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently 
registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments 
or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 
21 CFR Sec.  1301.33(a).
    Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in 
quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of 
Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no 
later than February 1, 2011.

    Dated: November 18, 2010.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-30358 Filed 12-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
**EXHIBIT 33.3**

**REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA**

Crusade Management Limited (the “**Asserting Party**”) is responsible for assessing compliance as of September 30, 2006 and for the period from September 21, 2006 (the date of issuance of the Crusade Global Trust No. 2 of 2006 transaction subject to the requirements of Regulation AB) through September 30, 2006 (the “**Reporting Period**”) with the servicing criteria set forth in Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the “**CFR**”), except for criteria 229.1122(d)(1)(ii), 229.1122(d)(1)(iv), 229.1122(d)(2)(iii)-(vi), 229.1122(d)(4)(i)-(ii) and 229.1122(d)(4)(iv)-(xiv) in the CFR, which the Asserting Party has concluded are not applicable to the servicing activities it performs with respect to the asset-backed securities transactionscovered by this report (the “**Applicable Servicing Criteria**”).  The transactions covered by this report include asset-backed securities transactions for which the Asserting Party served as manager that are backed by the same asset type backing the class of asset-backed securities of the Crusade Global Trust No. 2 of 2006 (including the Crusade Global Trust No. 2 of 2006 asset-backed securities transaction), that were completed on or after January 1, 2006 and that were registered with the SEC pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the “**Platform**”).

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of September 30, 2006 and for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria with respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

KPMG, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of September 30, 2006 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assessment.

Crusade Management Limited

/s/  Gregory M. Bartlett

Gregory M. Bartlett

Director

Date:  20 December 2006

----
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2327 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2327

   To require the FCC to issue a final order regarding white spaces.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 17, 2006

    Mr. Allen (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Sununu, and Mrs. Boxer) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
           Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the FCC to issue a final order regarding white spaces.

    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 ``Wireless Innovation Act of 2006'' or 
the ``Winn Act''.

SEC. 2. WHITE SPACES.

    (a) Completion of Order.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall 
complete its proceeding and issue a final order regarding white space 
in the matter of Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands, ET 
Docket No. 04-186.
    (b) Conditions.--In completing the requirement described in 
subsection (a), the Federal Communications Commission shall in such 
final order--
            (1) permit unlicensed, non-exclusive use of unassigned, 
        non-licensed television broadcast channels between 54 MHz and 
        698 MHz;
            (2) establish technical guidelines and requirements for the 
        offering of unlicensed service in such band to protect 
        incumbent licensed services and licensees from harmful 
        interference; and
            (3) require unlicensed devices operating in such band to 
        comply with existing certification processes.
                                 <all>
```
52.217 [Reserved]

52.217-1 [Reserved]

52.217-2 Cancellation Under Multi-year Contracts.

52.217-3 Evaluation Exclusive of Options.

52.217-4 Evaluation of Options Exercised at Time of Contract Award.

52.217-5 Evaluation of Options.

52.217-6 Option for Increased Quantity.

52.217-7 Option for Increased Quantity-Separately Priced Line Item.

52.217-8 Option to Extend Services.

52.217-9 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract.

Parent topic: Subpart 52.2 - Text of Provisions and Clauses
Order filed April 9, 2020

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 20

- 00198

- CV

____________ LAND

- AIR MEDICAL TRANSPORT, INC. , Appellant

V. CONCORD EMS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 3

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1120700



### O R D E R
The notice of appeal in this case was filed March 10, 2020. To date, the filing fee of $20 5.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant is excused by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from pay ing costs has been filed.
See Tex. R. App. P

. 5

. Therefore, the court issues the following order.
Appellant is ordered to pay th e filing fee in the amount of $20 5.00 to the

c lerk of this court on or before April 24, 2020

. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appell antfails to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal will be

dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, Poissant.