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

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DARRELL W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:03cv291-WCS

DALE RABON GUTHRIE,

Defendant.

 /

O R D E R

Previously, Plaintiff was given until July 15, 2005, to submit his response to

Defendant's motion for summary judgment, doc. 30. Doc. 43. Plaintiff has now

submitted a belated "motion to compel" which requests an order directing the warden of

Plaintiff's institution to provide Plaintiff with legal materials so that Plaintiff can file his

opposition. Doc. 44. Construed as a motion for an enlargement of time, the motion is

granted. Plaintiff shall have until August 30, 2005, in which to provide his opposition to

Defendant's summary judgment motion. As Plaintiff's obligation under FED. R. CIV. P.

56 was previously explained to him, it will not be set forth again in this order. Plaintiff

should review that order, doc. 43, prior to filing his response.

As a motion to compel, doc. 44, the motion is denied. The warden of Apalachee

Correctional Institution is not a Defendant in this case and the Court lacks personal

Case 5:03-cv-00291-WCS Document 45-2 Filed 07/25/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 5:03cv291-WCS

jurisdiction over Mr. Solomon. Furthermore, should Plaintiff be unable to obtain

sufficient pens and paper to draft his response, Plaintiff shall submit documentary

evidence of that fact to the Court. Plaintiff must show on grievances or inmate request

forms that he has been requesting pens and paper and has been denied those supplies. 

Plaintiff was able to file a 6-page motion here, and it is, thus, unclear why Plaintiff could

not have filed his response. No further extensions of time will be provided absent a

showing of extraordinary circumstances.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment, doc. 43, will be taken under

advisement on August 30, 2005. A report and recommendation will be entered on or

after that date, and any additional material in support of, or in opposition to, summary

judgment must be filed before that date. 

2. Plaintiff's "motion to compel," doc. 44, construed as a motion for an

enlargement of time, is GRANTED. 

3. Plaintiff shall have until August 30, 2005, in which to provide his opposition to

Defendant's summary judgment motion. 

4. Plaintiff's motion to compel, doc. 44, is DENIED.

5. The Clerk shall return this file to the undersigned upon Plaintiff's filing of his

opposition to summary judgment, or no later than August 30, 2005.

DONE AND ORDERED on July 25, 2005.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:03-cv-00291-WCS Document 45-2 Filed 07/25/05 Page 2 of 2
#### § 58.235 Modified dry milk products.

Dry milk products to which approved neutralizing agents or chemicals have been added or constituents removed to alter their original characteristics for processing or usage shall come from products meeting the requirements of §§ 58.232, 58.233, or 58.234. These products shall meet the applicable labeling requirements.
#### Arthur Davis et al., Appellants, v. Colonial Sand & Stone Co. of N. J., Inc., et al., Respondents.

Order entered on December 16, 1966 appealed from unanimously modified in the exercise of discretion, to provide that the motion is denied, without prejudice to renew on condition respondents pay a full bill of costs to date plus $250, such payment to be made within 10 days after service of a copy of the order entered herein, with notice of entry. As so modified the order is otherwise affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellants. In the event the condition is not fully met, the order appealed from is modified, in the exercise of discretion, to deny leave to renew, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellants. In this personal injury action plaintiffs have been compelled to commence several actions. In some instances this was because of erroneous information given them by defendants, apparently closely related corporations. Additionally, defendants were advised prior to the return date of the motion of a deficiency in their moving papers. This advice was coupled with an offer by plaintiffs to extend the return day of the motion so that the deficiency might be remedied. The offer was rejected. Thus defendants acted with knowledge. The facts and eircumstancs revealed by the record warrant the imposition of the. condition above. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Steuer, Rabin and McNally, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

NADIR AL BASHIR,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 5:20cv330-MW/MJF

STATE OF FLORIDA, 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. 5. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 5, 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.” The Clerk 

shall close the file.

SO ORDERED on June 10, 2021.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 5:20-cv-00330-MW-MJF Document 6 Filed 06/10/21 Page 1 of 1
19.000 Scope of part.

(a) This part implements the acquisition-related sections of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631, et

seq.), applicable sections of the Armed Services Procurement Act (10 U.S.C. 3063–3064 and 3203),

41 U.S.C. 3104, and Executive Order 12138, May 18, 1979. It covers—

(1) The determination that a concern is eligible for participation in the programs identified in this

part;

(2) The respective roles of executive agencies and the Small Business Administration (SBA) in

implementing the programs;

(3) Setting acquisitions aside, in total or in part, for exclusive competitive participation by small

business, 8(a) participants, HUBZone small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small

business (SDVOSB) concerns eligible under the SDVOSB Program, and economically disadvantaged

women-owned small business (EDWOSB) concerns and women-owned small business (WOSB)

concerns eligible under the WOSB Program;

(4) The certificate of competency program;

(5) The subcontracting assistance program;

(6) The "8(a)" business development program (hereafter referred to as 8(a) program), under which

agencies contract with the SBA for goods or services to be furnished under a subcontract by a small

disadvantaged business concern;

(7) The use of a price evaluation preference for HUBZone small business concerns;

(8) The use of veteran-owned small business concerns;

(9) Sole source awards to HUBZone small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small

business concerns, and EDWOSB concerns and WOSB concerns eligible under the WOSB Program;

and

(10) The use of reserves.

(b)

(1) Unless otherwise specified in this part (see Subpart 19.6 - Certificates of Competency and

Determinations of Responsibility and Subpart 19.7 - The Small Business Subcontracting Program)—

(i)Contracting officers shall apply this part in the United States and its outlying areas; and

(ii)Contracting officers may apply this part outside the United States and its outlying areas.

(2)Offerors that participate in any procurement under this part are required to meet the definition of

“small business concern” at 2.101 and the definition of “concern” at 19.001.

Parent topic: Part 19 - Small Business Programs
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memor andum Opinion filed

December 13 , 2016
.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 16

- 0 0939

- CV

IN RE ZAHIR QUERISHI , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 315th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 86707


### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On November 18 , relator Zahir Querishi filed a petition for writ of

m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ( West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel the Honorable2

Michael Schneider, presiding judge of the 315th District Court of Harris County , to rule on his pro se “Amended Writ of Habeas Corpus.”
A criminal defend ant is not entitled to hybrid representation in the same

cause and a trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a defendant who is represented by counsel

. See Robinson v. State , 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State , 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A s a result, “a trial court’ s decision not to rule on a pro se moti on” is not “subject to review.” Robinson , 240 S.W.3d at 922. The absence of a right to hybrid representation also means that a relator ’ s p ro se mandamus petition should be treated as pr esenting nothing for this court ’ s review. See Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding) ; In re Harrison , 14

- 15

- 00370

- CV, 2015 WL 5935816, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 13, 2015, orig. proceeding )

. The Amended Writ of Habeas Corpus is included in the Appendix and has a stamp indicating that it was filed on February 27, 2015. Relator was represen ted by counsel Richard Wetzel when he allegedly filed and requested a ruling on his Amended Writ of Habeas Corpus. See In re Querishi , 14

- 15

- 01100

- CV, 2016 WL 546019, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 9, 2016, orig. proceeding) and In re Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles , 495 S.W.3d 554 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding). Because relator was represented by counsel when he allegedly filed and requested a ruling on his Amended Writ of Habeas Corpus , the trial court was free to disre gard that f iling and had no duty to rule.3

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus

.

PER CURIAM
Panel c onsists of Justices Boyce, Busby, and Wise

.
#### § 58.422 Brine tank.

The brine tank shall be constructed of suitable non-toxic material and should be resistant to corrosion, pitting or flaking. The brine tank shall be operated so as to assure the brine is clean, well circulated, and of the proper strength and temperature for the variety of cheese being made.
52.217-1 [Reserved]

Parent topic: 52.217 [Reserved]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71790-71791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29544]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Second Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 224: Airport Security 
Access Control Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 224 meeting: Airport Security 
Access Control Systems (Update to DO-230B).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 224: Airport Security Access Control 
Systems.

DATES: The meeting will be held December 9, 2010, from 10 a.m. to 5 
p.m..

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW., 
Suite 805, MacIntosh--NBAA Room and Hilton--ATA Room, Washington DC, 
20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW. 
Suite 805, Washington, DC, 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice 
is hereby given for a Special Committee 224: Airport Security Access 
Control Systems (Update to DO-230B):

Agenda

December 9, 2010

<bullet> Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
<bullet> Review/Approve Summary--First Meeting
<bullet> Agenda Overview
<bullet> Report on Security Construction Guidelines Meeting
<bullet> Workgroup Reports
<bullet> Credentials PACS Interoperability
<bullet> Biometrics Interoperability
<bullet> Migration Communications
<bullet> Other Input From Members
<bullet> Work Objectives for Next Plenary
<bullet> Other Business
<bullet> Establish Agenda for Next Meeting
<bullet> Date and Place of Next Meeting

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.


[[Page 71791]]


    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 17, 2010.
Robert L. Bostiga,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2010-29544 Filed 11-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 5:99CR25LAC

JAMES PRATT

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on December 7, 2007

Motion/Pleadings: JUDICIAL NOTICE WITH REQUEST TO REVIEW TITLE 21 USC 851

AT SENTENCING PHASE 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on 12/5/2007 Doc.# 122

RESPONSES:

BY GOVERNMENT on 12/7/2007 Doc.# 120

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 11

th day of

December, 2007, 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 5:99-cr-00025-LC-EMT Document 123 Filed 12/11/07 Page 1 of 1
52.232-35 Designation of Office	for Government Receipt of Electronic Funds Transfer Information.       As prescribed	in 32.1110(c), insert	the following clause:          Designation of Office for Government	Receipt of Electronic Funds Transfer Information (Jul 2013)                                       (a) 						            As	provided in paragraph (b) of the clause at 52.232-34, Payment by	Electronic Funds Transfer-Other than System for Award Management,	the Government has designated the office cited in paragraph (c)	of this clause as the office to receive the Contractor’s electronic	funds transfer (EFT) information, in lieu of the payment office	of this contract.                                          (b) 						            The Contractor	shall send all EFT information, and any changes to EFT information	to the office designated in paragraph (c) of this clause. The Contractor	shall not send EFT information to the payment office, or any other	office than that designated in paragraph (c). The Government need	not use any EFT information sent to any office other than that designated in	paragraph (c).                (c) Designated Office:                                 Name:________________________________________________________________________Mailing Address:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Telephone Number:____________________________________Person to Contact:____________________________________Electronic Address:____________________________________(End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.232 [Reserved]
52.226-6 Promoting Excess Food Donation to

Nonprofit Organizations.

As prescribed in 26.404 , insert the following clause:

Promoting Excess Food Donation to Nonprofit Organizations (Jun 2020)

(a) Definitions. As used in this clauseApparently wholesome food means food that meets all quality and labeling standards imposed by

Federal, State, and local laws and regulations even though the food may not be readily marketable

due to appearance, age, freshness, grade, size, surplus, or other conditions.

Excess food means food that-

(1) Is not required to meet the needs of the executive agencies; and

(2) Would otherwise be discarded.

Food-insecure means inconsistent access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food.

Nonprofit organization means any organization that is—

(1) Described in section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and

(2) Exempt from tax under section 501(a) of that Code.

(b) In accordance with the Federal Food Donation Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 1792), the Contractor is

encouraged, to the maximum extent practicable and safe, to donate excess, apparently wholesome

food to nonprofit organizations that provide assistance to food-insecure people in the United States.

(c) Costs.

(1) The Contractor, including any subcontractors, shall assume the responsibility for all the costs

and the logistical support to collect, transport, maintain the safety of, or distribute the excess,

apparently wholesome food to the nonprofit organization(s) that provides assistance to food-insecure

people.

(2) The Contractor will not be reimbursed for any costs incurred or associated with the donation of

excess foods. Any costs incurred for excess food donations are unallowable.

(d) Liability. The Government and the Contractor, including any subcontractors, shall be exempt

from civil and criminal liability to the extent provided under the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food

Donation Act (42 U.S.C. 1791). Nothing in this clause shall be construed to supersede State or local

health regulations (subsection (f) of 42 U.S. C. 1791).

(e) Subcontracts. The Contractor shall insert this clause in all contracts, task orders, delivery orders,

purchase orders, and other similar instruments that exceed the threshold specified in Federal

Acquisition Regulation 26.404 on the date of subcontract award with its subcontractors or suppliers,

at any tier, who will perform, under this contract, the provision, service, or sale of food in the United
States.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.226 [Reserved]
[J-11-2015][M.O. – Stevens, J.] 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

Appellee 

v. 

PATRICK RAY HANEY, 

Appellant 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 698 CAP 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence 

entered on 3/12/14 in the Court of 

Common Pleas, Criminal Division of 

Fayette County at No. CP-26-CR0002075-2011 

SUBMITTED: February 25, 2015 

DISSENTING OPINION 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: December 29, 2015 

Consistent with my dissenting opinion in Commonwealth v. Woodard, ___ Pa. 

___, ____ A.3d ___, 2015 WL 7767271 (Dec. 3, 2015), which I incorporate here by 

reference, I respectfully dissent. In both Woodard and the present case, I would hold 

that the trial courts erred in admitting into evidence color photographs of nude, battered, 

open-eyed, deceased children taken during autopsies, encompassing full body portraits 

and facial close-ups. As I explained at greater length in Woodard, I believe that such 

graphic, visceral portrayals of dead children create an unacceptable risk of influencing 

jurors to reach conclusions based on factors other than a strict application of the law to 

the facts. See id. at ___, ___ A.3d at ___, 2015 WL 7767271, at *24-26 (Saylor, C.J., 

dissenting).1 The impact is heightened in the present case, given that the trial court 

 

1

 This case and Woodard suggest the potential for confusion in this area of the law in 

terms of what this Court means by the word “inflammatory.” The Woodard majority 

credited a trial court’s finding that one set of autopsy photographs of a naked, battered 

(continuedF) 
[J-11-2015][M.O. – Stevens, J.] - 2 

apparently permitted the jurors to have unfettered access to these pictures during their 

deliberations, see N.T., March 11, 2014, at 265. Accord Woodard, ___ Pa. at ___, ___ 

A.3d at ___, 2015 WL 7767271, at *10 (highlighting, as a factor favoring affirmance of 

the trial court’s decision to admit autopsy photographs, the fact that “the jury was not 

given the photographs to examine during deliberations[.]”). 

 

(Fcontinued) 

child were not inflammatory, see Woodard, ___ Pa. at ___, ___ A.3d at ___, 2015 WL 

7767271, at *10; whereas, the present majority credits another trial court’s finding that 

similar pictures were inflammatory. See Majority Opinion, slip op. at 21. The majority, 

however, provides no explanation for why the visceral impact of the two sets of 

photographs upon lay jurors may have been different. 

From my own point of view, having reviewed both sets of pictures, I fail to see any 

material difference in this regard.
32.205 Procedures for offeror-proposed

commercial contract financing.

(a) Under this procedure, each offeror may propose financing terms. The contracting officer must

then determine which offer is in the best interests of the United States.

(b) Solicitations. The contracting officer must include in the solicitation the provision at 52.232-31,

invitation to Propose Financing Terms. The contracting officer must also-

(1) Specify the delivery payment (invoice) dates that will be used in the evaluation of financing

proposals; and

(2) Specify the interest rate to be used in the evaluation of financing proposals (see paragraph (c)(4)

of this section).

(c) Evaluation of proposals.

(1) When contract financing terms vary among offerors, the contracting officer must adjust each

proposed price for evaluation purposes to reflect the cost of providing the proposed financing in

order to determine the total cost to the Government of that particular combination of price and

financing.

(2) Contract financing results in the Government making payments earlier than it otherwise would.

In order to determine the cost to the Government of making payments earlier, the contracting officer

must compute the imputed cost of those financing payments and add it to the proposed price to

determine the evaluated price for each offeror.

(3) The imputed cost of a single financing payment is the amount of the payment multiplied by the

annual interest rate, multiplied by the number of years, or fraction thereof, between the date of the

financing payment and the date the amount would have been paid as a delivery payment. The

imputed cost of financing is the sum of the imputed costs of each of the financing payments.

(4) The contracting officer must calculate the time value of proposal-specified contract financing

arrangements using as the interest rate the nominal discount rate specified in AppendixC of the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) CircularA-94, "Guidelines and Discount Rates for BenefitCost Analysis of Federal Programs," appropriate to the period of contract financing. Where the

period of proposed financing does not match the periods in the OMB Circular, the interest rate for

the period closest to the finance period shall be used. AppendixC is updated yearly, and is available

from the Office of Economic Policy in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Parent topic: Subpart 32.2 - Commercial Product and Commercial Service Purchase Financing
22.2110 Contract clause.

Insert the clause at 52.222-62, Paid Sick Leave Under Executive Order 13706, in solicitations and

contracts that include the clause at 52.222-6, Construction Wage Rate Requirements, or 52.222-41,

Service Contract Labor Standards, where work is to be performed, in whole or in part, in the United

States (the 50 States and the District of Columbia).

Parent topic: Subpart 22.21 - Establishing Paid Sick Leave For Federal Contractors