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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DA VHON YOUNG,

Petitioner,

v. 4:20cv224–WS/EMT

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 8) docketed July 15, 2020. The magistrate judge recommends that this case be

dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order. The petitioner

has filed no objections to the report and recommendation.

Upon review of the record, this court has determined that the

recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 8) is adopted

and incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

Case 4:20-cv-00224-WS-EMT Document 9 Filed 08/14/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. This action are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to

comply with a court order. 

3. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: "All claims are DISMISSED

without prejudice."

DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of August , 2020.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00224-WS-EMT Document 9 Filed 08/14/20 Page 2 of 2
| (1)   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: June 21, 2013 | By:  | /s/ Arnold F. Sock                            |
|---------------------|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |      | Arnold F. SockPresident (Principal Executive Officer)                                                                                                                           |
|                |      |                                                                                                                                                                            |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT

RECOVERY, INC., 

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 4:20mc7-MW/MAF

TERRALYNN HOY, 

Defendant,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

et al.,

Garnishees.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Recommendation. ECF No. 51. Accordingly, upon consideration, no objections

having been filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 51, is accepted and adopted as 

this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “This case is 
2

DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and failure to respond to a Court Order, and 

the writs of garnishment are hereby DISSOLVED.” The Clerk shall close the file.

SO ORDERED on July 19, 2023.

s/Mark E. Walker ____

Chief United States District Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 4:01-CR-48-SPM-2

GERALD CINEUS,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CORRECT PRESENTENCE REPORT

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to

Amend the Presentence Report (doc. 147). The Defendant asserts that he

should have been acknowledged as a United States citizen in the Presentence

Report, and that the Court erred at sentencing by ordering that the Defendant be

deported.

First, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, a trial court does not

have jurisdiction to correct inaccuracies in a PSR after sentencing. See United

States v. Giaimo, 880 F.2d 1561, 1563 (2d Cir. 1989). Additionally, the

Defendant was sentenced in 2002 to concurrent life sentences of imprisonment.

Neither the Judgment (doc. 98) nor the sentencing minutes (doc. 95) reflects an

Order of deportation.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to Amend the Presentence
Report (doc. 147) is hereby denied. 

DONE AND ORDERED this first day of December, 2010.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
### Description of an EPA Significant Guidance Document

7/24/2007

EPA maintains a list of Signi ficant Guidance Documents at http://www.epa.gov/regulations/guidance/ as called for by the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-07.pdf ). Please be aware that the EPA list of Significant Guidance Docu ments does not include every guidance document issued by EPA and only encompasses those documents that are "significant" as defined by OMB’s Bulletin.

This final document has been determined to be an EPA Significant Guidance Document per the OMB Bulletin definition and is included on the EPA list of significant guidance documents. OMB’s Bulletin directs agencies to allow for the public to submit comments on any Significant Guidance Document that appears on the agency’s list of significant guidance documents. EPA allows for public comments to be submitted through the Agency’s electronic doc ket and commenting system at http://www.regulations.gov

.

Please note that although you may recei ve an acknowledgement that EPA has received your comment, you may not receive a detailed response to your comment. Your feedback is nevertheless important to the EP A and will be forwarded to the appropriate program staff for consideration.
42.1301 General.

Situations may occur during contract performance that cause the Government to order a suspension

of work, or a work stoppage. This subpart provides clauses to meet these situations and a clause for

settling contractor claims for unordered Government caused delays that are not otherwise covered

in the contract.

Parent topic: Subpart 42.13 - Suspension of Work, Stop-Work Orders, and Government Delay of

Work
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 75462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30486]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, December 8, 2010; 2 p.m.-3 p.m.

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS: Closed to the Public.

Matter To Be Considered: 

Compliance Status Report

    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: November 30, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30486 Filed 12-1-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
Order entered September 16, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01617-CR

OMAR SHARIE VAUGHN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F06-64778-Y

ORDER

On May 29, 2013, we ordered the Dallas County District Clerk to prepare and file a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing a detailed itemization of the costs assessed in this case, 

including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and court appointed attorney fees. On 

June 6, 2013, the Dallas County District Clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record. However, the 

detailed itemization of costs included in the supplemental record does not comply with the Texas 

Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 103.001, 103.006 (West 

2006).

Accordingly, we ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within seven days of 

this order, a second supplemental clerk’s record that contains a detailed itemization of the costs 
assessed in this case that complies with articles 1003.001 and 1003.006 of the Texas Code of 

Criminal Procedure. See id. art. 103.001 (“A cost is not payable by the person charged with the 

cost until a written bill is produced or is ready to be produced, containing the items of cost, 

signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for 

the cost.”) (emphasis added); 103.006 (“If a criminal action or proceeding . . . is appealed, an 

officer of the court shall certify and sign a bill of costs stating the costs that have accrued and 

send the bill of cost to the court to which the action or proceeding is . . . appealed) (emphasis 

added).

/s/ JIM MOSELEY 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Nidhi Andalon, Chief Financial Officer of Qualstar Corporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Dated: February 14, 2011
/s/ NIDHI ANDALON
 Nidhi Andalon
 Vice President and Principal Financial Officer
45.107 Contract clauses.       (a)                                                         (1) 								                Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.245-1, Government Property, in-                                                                           (i) 										                    All cost-reimbursement and time-and-material type solicitations and contracts, and labor-hour solicitations when property is expected to be furnished for the labor-hour contracts.                                                                              (ii) 										                    Fixed-price solicitations and contracts when the Government will provide Government property.                                                                              (iii) 										                    Contracts or modifications awarded under FAR part  12 procedures where Government property that exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold, as defined in FAR 2.101, is furnished or where the contractor is directed to acquire property for use under the contract that is titled in the Government.                                                                                                           (2) 								                The contracting officer shall use the clause with its Alternate I in contracts other than those identified in FAR 45.104(a), Responsibility and Liability for Government Property.                                                            (3) 								                The contracting officer shall use the clause with its Alternate II when a contract for the conduct of basic or applied research at nonprofit institutions of higher education or at nonprofit organizations whose primary purpose is the conduct of scientific research (see 35.014) is contemplated.                                                                             (b) 						            The contracting officer shall also insert the clause at 52.245-2, Government Property (Installation Operation Services), in fixed-price service contracts to be performed on a Government installation when Government-furnished property will be provided for initial provisioning only and the Government is not responsible for repair or replacement.                                          (c) 						            The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.245-9, Use and Charges, in solicitations and contracts when the clause at 52.245-1 is included.                                          (d) 						            Purchase orders for property repair need not include a Government property clause when the unit acquisition cost of Government property to be repaired does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, unless other Government property (not for repair) is provided.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 45.1 - General
Home > International > International Energy Statistics

International Energy Statistics

Country: All Countries Start Year: 2006 End Year: 2012

Product: Fuel Ethanol Unit: Thousand Barrels Per Day

Fuel Ethanol Consumption (Thousand Barrels Per Day) Units Conversion Download Excel

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Bermuda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Canada 4.6 20 24 26 32 42 41.2

Greenland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mexico 0 0 0 (s) 0.3 0.3 0.3

Saint Pierre and Miquelon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

United States 357.5 449.2 629.9 719.9 838.8 841.1 838

Antarctica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Antigua and Barbuda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Argentina 0 0 0 0.1 2 3 4.5

Aruba 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Footnotes:

-- = Not applicable

(s) = Value is too small for the number of decimal places shown

NA = Not available 

W = Data withheld to avoid disclosure 

Related Information:

Table Notes

Sources

Glossary

Contacts

Country

Petroleum Natural Gas Coal Electricity Renewables Total Energy Indicators Country

Electricity Generation | Electricity Consumption | Biofuels Production | Biofuels Consumption | Heat Content
Table: Fuel Ethanol Consumption (Thousand Barrels Per Day)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Global 630 816 1,108 1,281 1,419 1,407 1,447

United States 358 449 630 720 839 841 838

All other countries 272 367 478 561 580 566 609

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Thousand barrels per day

Global consumption of ethanol

outside of the U.S.
Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5968-MCR-HTC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

STACY ANTONIO SCOTT, JR,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5968-MCR-HTC

LEAH JAMES FRAME, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

O R D E R

The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on December 29, 

2020, recommending that the complaint be dismissed as to Defendants Santiago, 

Smith, Fernandez, Inch and Carr for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 5. The 

parties were 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.

Case 3:20-cv-05968-MCR-HTC Document 10 Filed 02/01/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5968-MCR-HTC

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

(1) The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 5, is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

(2) This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Defendants 

Santiago, Smith, Fernandez, Inch, and Carr under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 

§1915A for failure to state a claim.

(3) The clerk of court is directed to refer this matter to the magistrate 

judge for further proceedings against the remaining defendants.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of February 2021.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05968-MCR-HTC Document 10 Filed 02/01/21 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

v. Case No. 3:20cr98/MCR

MICHAEL LAVON RAWLS, JR.

/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The Defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. 

R. Crim. P., and has entered a plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment. After 

cautioning and examining the Defendant under oath concerning each of the subjects 

mentioned in Rule 11, I determined the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and 

the offense charged is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of 

the essential elements thereof. I therefore recommend the plea of guilty be 

accepted and the Defendant be adjudicated guilty and have sentence imposed 

accordingly.

Dated: January 27, 2021.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00098-MCR Document 22 Filed 01/27/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cr98/MCR

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed 

within twenty-four (24) hours after being served a copy thereof. Any different 

deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court=s internal use 

only and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon the 

magistrate judge and all other parties. A party failing to object to a magistrate 

judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report and 

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on 

unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See U.S. Ct. of App. 11th Cir. 

Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case 3:20-cr-00098-MCR Document 22 Filed 01/27/21 Page 2 of 2
Dated:  March 29, 2007                                                                             In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:By: /s/Richard McKinney Title:Managing DirectorStructured Asset Securities CorporationI, Richard McKinney, certify that:1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Trust 2006-HE1  (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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 report;3.  Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.  Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.Richard McKinney**Exhibit 31 : Sarbanes-Oxley Certification**Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as CustodianGMAC Mortgage, LLC, as ServicerU.S. Bank National Association, as Indenture Trustee and Custodian
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 1:00cr15-SPM

WILLIAM H. BLACK,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING AMENDED MOTION FOR HOME CONFINEMENT

OR HALFWAY HOUSE DESIGNATION

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant William H. Black’s

amended motion to serve the remainder of his sentence on home confinement or

at a halfway house (doc. 1214). Defendant’s original motion (doc. 1206) was

denied by order (doc. 1213) dated April 13, 2007. Based on statements made in

the amended motion, it does not appear that Defendant has received a copy of

the April 13, 2007 order. The Court, therefore, will reiterate the reasons for

denying the motion and direct the clerk of court to send a copy of the April 13,

2007, order to Defendant.

As previously stated, a sentencing court has no authority to order a

convicted defendant to be designated to a particular facility or program. United

States v. Johnson, 223 F.3d 665, 673 (7th Cir. 2000). Instead, the Bureau of

Case 1:00-cr-00015-MW-GRJ Document 1216 Filed 06/21/07 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

CASE NO.: 1:00cr15-SPM

Prisons has the authority under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3621(b), to

designate the place of a prisoner’s confinement. That authority includes the

placement of a prisoner on home confinement for the last ten percent of his

prison term, not to exceed six months, under Title 18, United States Code,

Section 3624(c).

 A prisoner aggrieved by a Bureau of Prisons placement decision may

seek court review of the decision through a habeas corpus petition under Title

28, United States Code, Section 2241. See Woodall v. Federal Bureau of

Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 241-44 (3d Cir. 2005); c.f. Richmond v. Scibana, 387 F.3d

602, 605-06 (7th Cir. 2004) (explaining that a prisoner challenging the substance

of a placement decision should utilize Section 2241, but a challenge to the rules

used to make a placement decision should be made through the Administrative

Procedure Act). However, “[s]ection 2241 petitions may be brought only in the

district court for the district in which the inmate is incarcerated.” Fernandez v.

United States, 941 F.2d 1488, 1495 (11th Cir. 1995). Because Defendant is not

incarcerated within this district, the Court has no jurisdiction to review the Bureau

of Prisons’ placement decision. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Defendant’s amended motion (doc. 1214) is denied for lack of

jurisdiction.

2. Along with a copy of this order, the clerk shall send a copy of the

Case 1:00-cr-00015-MW-GRJ Document 1216 Filed 06/21/07 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

CASE NO.: 1:00cr15-SPM

April 13, 2007, order (doc. 1213) to Defendant.

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of June, 2007.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 1:00-cr-00015-MW-GRJ Document 1216 Filed 06/21/07 Page 3 of 3
156 So.2d 601

#### HUMBLE OIL AND REFINING COMPANY *and Tennessee*Louisiana Oil Company v. Leon BOUDOIN and Arceneaux J. Boudoin et al.

No. 46869.

Oct. 9, 1963.

In re: Areeneaux J. Boudoin et al. applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Cameron. 154 So.2d 239.

Writs refused. There appears no error of law in the judgment complained of.
#### GALLIGHER, Appellant v. MacDONALD ENGINEERING CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

June 1, 1906.)

Action by Thomas Galligher against the MacDonald Engineering Company.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed, with costs.

SPRING, NASH, and KRUSE, JJ., vote for affirmance upon the ground that the plaintiff as matter of law is not entitled to recover. MCLENNAN, P. J., and WILLIAMS, J., vote for affirmance upon the ground that the plaintiff has not shown himself free from contributory negligence.