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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CLEVEN JOSEPH MOORER,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:21cv84/TKW/EMT

ROGER VINSON, Senior Judge,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 6). No objections were filed. Upon due consideration of 

the Report and Recommendation and the case file, the Court agrees with the 

magistrate judge’s determination that this case is frivolous. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by

reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED, all pending motions are DENIED as moot,

and the Clerk shall close the file

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of March, 2021. 

T. Kent Wetherell, II

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:21-cv-00084-TKW-EMT Document 7 Filed 03/01/21 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

MAY 2, 2005

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20549

                CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER REGARDING
                PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

     I, John C. Paulsen, the Chief Executive Officer of eNucleus, Inc. (the
"Company"), in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that, to the best of his
knowledge:

     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 represents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


                                            /s/  John C. Paulsen
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 John C. Paulsen
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
MAY 2, 2005

This Certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Ruth Ann Larsen, Appellant, v Congregation B’Nai Jeshurun of Staten Island, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Exclusive Catering by Kaplan, Inc., Third-Party Defendant.

[815 NYS2d 187]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated December 17, 2004, as granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

To prove a prima facie case of negligence in a trip-and-fall case, a plaintiff is required to show that the defendant created the condition which caused the accident or that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition *(see Cruceta v Funnel Equities, Inc.,*18 AD3d 693, 694 [2005]; *Nicklas v Tedien Realty Corp.,*305 AD2d 385, 386 [2003]). A defendant has constructive notice of a defect when the defect is visible and apparent, and existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident that it could have been discovered and corrected *(see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836, 837-838 [1986]; *Negri v Stop & Shop,*65 NY2d 625, 626 [1985]; *Golding v Powell & Dempsey,*247 AD2d 510 [1998]).

The defendant met its initial burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly defective floor mat at issue. The evidence submitted by *644the plaintiff in opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the section of the mat that allegedly caused the accident had become buckled or elevated before the accident, or that the defendant had constructive notice of this allegedly defective condition. Although the plaintiff presented evidence that actual notice of the allegedly defective condition had been given to Mel Kaplan and Stacie Kaplan, the principals of her employer, she failed to present evidence of a connection between the Kaplans and the defendant sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the actual notice given to the Kaplans could be imputed to the defendant *(see Torres v New York City Hous. Auth.,*261 AD2d 273, 275 [1999]; *cf. Bentivegna v Investment Props. Assoc.,*180 AD2d 500 [1992]). The Supreme Court therefore correctly granted that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]; *Kasner v Pathmark Stores, Inc.,*18 AD3d 440 [2005]; *Penn v Fleet Bank,*12 AD3d 584 [2004]; *Hartman v Mountain Val. Brew Pub,*301 AD2d 570 [2003]; *Bongiorno v Penske Auto. Ctr.,*289 AD2d 520 [2001]). Florio, J.P., Luciano, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.
§ 766.203 Payment of recapture. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 65045 , Aug. 8, 2024.
( a ) The borrower must pay on the due date or 30 days from Agency notification, whichever is later: ( 1 ) Seventy-five percent of the appreciation in the real estate security if the agreement is triggered within 4 years or less from the date of the writedown; or
( 2 ) Fifty percent of such appreciation if the agreement is triggered more than 4 years from the date of the writedown or when the agreement matures.
( b ) If the borrower sells a portion of the security, the borrower must pay shared appreciation only on the portion sold. Shared appreciation on the remaining portion will be due in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) The amount of recapture cannot exceed the amount of the debt written off through debt writedown.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

JAMES PETTY, AIS# 124252, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case #2:06-CV-639-WKW 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

RAY B. FINEDORE, et al., ) 

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME 

Comes now the Defendant, Ray Finedore, by counsel, 

moving the Court for an enlargement of time, pursuant 

to Rule 6, Fed.R.Civ.Proc., to file an Answer and 

Special Report and shows unto the Court the following: 

1. Defendant needs addition time to file a proper 

response. 

2. The Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by an 

enlargement. 

3. Defendant’s request is within his time to respond. 

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 10 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 1 of 3
4. Defendant request a 14-day enlargement, making his 

response due September 12, 2006. 

Respectfully submitted, 

TROY KING 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

 GREGORY O. GRIFFIN, SR. 

 CHIEF COUNSEL 

 

 s/STEVEN M. SIRMON 

 ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 

 State Bar#: ASB-5949-S61S 

 Ala. Bd. Pardons and Paroles 

 P.O. Box 302405 

 Montgomery, Alabama 36130 

 Telephone: (334) 242-8700 

 Fax: (334) 353-4423 

 Steve.Sirmon@alabpp.gov

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on 8-29-2006 I 

electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of 

the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send 

notification of such filing to the following: (None), 

and I hereby certify that on 8-29-2006 I mailed ,by 

United States Postal Service, the document to the 

following non-CM/ECF participants: 

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 10 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 2 of 3
JAMES PETTY 

AIS #139044 

EASTERLING CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 

200 WALLACE DR. 

CLIO, ALABAMA 36017-2615 

Done this 29th day of August 2006.

 Respectfully submitted, 

 s/ STEVEN M. SIRMON 

 ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 

 State Bar#: ASB-5949-S61S 

 Ala. Bd. Pardons and Paroles 

 301 South Ripley Street 

 P.O. Box 302405 

 Montgomery, Alabama 36130 

 Telephone: (334) 242-8700 

 Fax: (334) 353-4423 

 steve.sirmon@alabpp.gov

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 10 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 3 of 3
639824-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ELRICK HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

OPTION ONE MORTGAGE 

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

2:06-cv-630-ID

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii), it is hereby stipulated by all parties 

hereto that this action is dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear his or its own 

attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs.

This the 23rd day of March, 2007.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Robert E. Kirby, Jr.

Robert E. Kirby, Jr. 

Attorney for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

The Kirby Law Firm

P.O. Box 606

Columbiana, Alabama 35051

Telephone: (205) 669-5282

bkirby@bkirbylaw.com

Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 22 Filed 03/23/2007 Page 1 of 2
633036-1 2

/s/ Richard H. Allen

Richard H. Allen

Chad W. Bryan

Attorneys for Premier Mortgage Funding, Inc.

OF COUNSEL:

Capell & Howard

150 South Perry Street 

Montgomery, AL 36104

Telephone: (334) 241-8000

rha@chlaw.com

/s/ Benjamin Joseph Espy

Benjamin Joseph Espy 

Attorney for Morgan Title Services, LLC

OF COUNSEL:

Melton Espy & Williams, PC 

P.O. Drawer 5130 

Montgomery, AL 36103-5130 

Telephone: (334) 263-6621 

bespy@mewlegal.com

/s/ Stephen A. Walsh

Stephen A. Walsh

Attorney for Defendants Option One Mortgage 

Corporation and H&R Block Mortgage 

Corporation

OF COUNSEL:

Adams and Reese, LLP

2100 Third Avenue North, Suite 1100

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Telephone: (205) 250-5000

stephen.walsh@arlaw.com

Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 22 Filed 03/23/2007 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41093

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

ROGACIANO REYES-ZUNIGA,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:16-CR-422-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rogaciano Reyes-

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 20, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41093 Document: 00513881555 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2017
No. 16-41093

2

Zuniga has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 

632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Reyes-Zuniga has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record. 

We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-41093 Document: 00513881555 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2017
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

§ 800.149 Maintenance and retention of records on licenses and approvals. ( a ) *Licenses.* Agencies, contractors, and approved scale testing organizations shall maintain complete records of licenses. These records consist of current information showing ( 1 ) the name of each licensee,
( 2 ) the scope of each license,
( 3 ) the termination date of each license, and
( 4 ) related information required by the Service. These records shall be maintained for the tenure of the licensee.
( b ) *Approvals.* Agencies shall maintain complete records of approvals of weighers. These records consist of current information showing the name of each approved weigher employed by or at each approved weighing facility in the area of responsibility assigned to an agency or field office. These records shall be maintained for the tenure of the weigher's employment as an approved weigher.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0580-0011)
#### § 927.15 Process.

*Process* means to can, concentrate, freeze, dehydrate, press or puree pears, or in any other way convert pears commercially into a processed product.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 11536 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. HECTOR JESUS CHAVEZ

- LUNA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18

- CR

- 159

- 1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Hector Jesus Chavez

- Luna pleaded guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and he asserts in this appeal that the district court erred in determining his sentence. The pending motion for substitution of counsel is GRANTED. The district court erred, Chavez

- Luna contends : (1) in determining th e quantity of drugs for which he was accountable at sentencing ; (2) in increasing

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fif th Circuit 

### FILED October 4, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-11536 Document: 00515145894 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2019No. 18

- 11536

2 his offense level by two levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(2) because, during an escape attempt, Chavez

- Luna entered a residence and threatened the homeowner with bodily harm ; (3) in increasing the offense level by two levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintenance of a premises for the purpose of distributing a controlled substance ; and (4) in applying a four

level role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) because Chavez

- Luna was an organizer

- leader of a criminal activity involving five or more participants or that was otherwise extensive. W e review these questions for clear error. See United States v. Trujillo , 502 F.3d 353 , 356 (5th Cir. 2007 ). Because t he unrebutted facts in the presentence report have an adequate and sufficiently reliable factual basis , they were properly relied upon by the district court in overruling Chavez

- Luna’s objections to the drug quantity and
gu idelines enhancements

. See United States v. Alaniz , 726 F.3d 586, 618

- 19 (5th Cir. 2013 ). For the first time on appeal, Chavez

- Luna asserts that the threat enhancement was applied improperly because the threat was not in furtherance of a drug traffickin g offense. Because the threat was part of the relevant conduct, Chavez

- Luna cannot show that the district court plainly erred in applying the enhancement. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009) ; see also United States v. Teague , 772 F. Ap p’x 149, 150 (5th Cir. 2019 ); United States v. Torres , 694 F. App ’ x 937, 9 39, 9 42 (5th Cir. 2017 )

. 1 AFFIRMED

.

1 Unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 1996, may be persuasive authority. Ballard v. Burton , 444 F.3d 391, 401 n.7 (5th Cir. 2006); 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. Case: 18-11536 Document: 00515145894 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/04/2019
§ 718.112 Redetermination. ( a ) A redetermination of crop acreage, appraised yield, or farm-stored production for a farm may be initiated by the county committee, State committee, or Deputy Administrator at any time. Redetermination may be requested by a producer with an interest in the farm if the producer pays the cost of the redetermination. The request must be submitted to FSA within 5 calendar days after the initial appraisal of the yield of a crop, or before the farm-stored production is removed from storage. A redetermination will be undertaken in the manner prescribed by the Deputy Administrator. A redetermination will be used in lieu of any prior determination unless it is determined by the representative of the Deputy Administrator that there is good cause not to do so.
( b ) FSA will refund the payment of the cost for a redetermination when, because of an error in the initial determination: ( 1 ) The appraised yield is changed by at least the larger of: ( i ) Five percent or 5 pounds for cotton;
( ii ) Five percent or 1 bushel for wheat, barley, oats, and rye; or
( iii ) Five percent or 2 bushels for corn and grain sorghum; or
( 2 ) The farm stored production is changed by at least the smaller of 3 percent or 600 bushels; or
( 3 ) The acreage of the crop is: ( i ) Changed by at least the larger of 3 percent or 0.5 acre; or
( ii ) Considered to be within program requirements.
[68 FR 16176, Apr. 3, 2003, as amended at 80 FR 41996, July 16, 2015]
§ 925.20 Establishment and membership. ( a ) There is hereby established a California Desert Grape Committee consisting of 10 members, each of whom shall have an alternate who shall have the same qualifications as the member. Four of the members and their alternates shall be producers, or officers or employees of producers (producer members). Four of the members and their alternates shall be handlers, or officers or employees of handlers (handler members). One member and alternate shall be either a producer or handler, or an officer or employee thereof. One member and alternate shall represent the public.
( b ) Not more than two members and not more than two alternate members shall be affiliated with the same handler entity.
( c ) The committee may, with the approval of the Secretary, provide such other allocation of producer or handler membership, or both, as may be necessary to assure equitable representation.
[45 FR 40566, June 16, 1980, as amended at 87 FR 36213, June 16, 2022]
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY

ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Eye Care centers of America, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas C. Shepard, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.



|                |  |  |  |                                                      |  | 
|--------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|August 14, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Douglas C. Shepard                               |  | 
|                |  |  |  | Douglas C. Shepard                                   |  | 
|                |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  | 

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO EYE CARE CENTERS OF
AMERICA, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY EYE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
§ 769.156 Rates and terms. ( a ) For loans to intermediaries: ( 1 ) The rate of interest for an HPRP loan will bear a fixed rate over the term of the loan of 1 percent or less as determined by the Administrator;
( 2 ) The repayment term for an HPRP loan will not exceed 30 years; and
( 3 ) Annual payments will be established. Interest will be due annually; however, principal payments may be deferred by the Agency.
( b ) Loans to the ultimate recipient from the HPRP revolving loan fund are required to have rates and terms clearly and publicly disclosed to qualified ultimate recipients. ( 1 ) The interest rate for loans to ultimate recipients will be set by the intermediary within the limits established by the intermediary's relending plan approved by the Agency. The rate should normally be the lowest rate sufficient to cover the loan's proportional share of the HPRP revolving loan fund's debt service costs, reserve for bad debts, and administrative costs.
( 2 ) Loans made by an intermediary to an ultimate recipient will be scheduled for repayment over a term negotiated by the intermediary and ultimate recipient; but in no case will the loan term exceed 30 years, unless otherwise specified by the Agency.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

LEROY WILLIAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO 2:06-cv-658-TFM

)

STATE OF ALABAMA DEP’T OF )

TRANSPORTATION, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

At the request of the parties, the deadline for the parties to file a joint stipulation of

dismissal is amended to on or before September 28, 2007. 

DONE this 17th day of September, 2007.

 /s/Terry F. Moorer

 TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 53 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

M IDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABA M A

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

From: Clerk’s Office

Case Style: VFS Leasing Co. v. G. F. Kelly, Inc. et al 

Case Number: 3:06-cv-00638-SRW

Referenced Pleading: Exhibit F - Attachment to Doc. 1

This Notice of Correction was filed in the referenced case this date to correct the PDF

documents attached to this notice. Please see the correct PDF documents to this notice.

Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 2 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 2-2 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 1 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 2-2 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 2 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 2-2 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 3 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 2-2 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 4 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 2-2 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 5 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 2-2 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 6 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 2-2 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 7 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 2-2 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 8 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 2-2 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 9 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 2-2 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 10 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 2-2 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 11 of 11
Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 32 Filed 09/22/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 32 Filed 09/22/2006 Page 2 of 2