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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-CV-81379-AMC

CHESTER LEE ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUANCIA HERRING, and

NORRIS FUSE,

Defendants.

__________________________________________/

ORDER ON MOTION TO RECUSE [ECF No. 96]

Defendants ask me to recuse. They cite Title 28, United States Code, Section

455, which requires a judge to recuse himself “in any proceeding in which his 

impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), or if “he has a 

personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed 

evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). The applicable 

legal standard is whether “an objective, fully informed lay observer would entertain 

significant doubt about the judge’s impartiality.” Christo v. Padgett, 223 F.3d 1324, 

1333 (11th Cir. 2000). “A party introducing a motion to recuse [under Section 455]

carries a heavy burden of proof; a judge is presumed to be impartial and the party

seeking disqualification bears the substantial burden of proving otherwise.” Pope v. 

Case 9:22-cv-81379-AMC Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

Fed. Express Corp., 974 F.2d 982, 985 (8th Cir.1992) (citation omitted); see In Re 

Clark, 289 B.R. 193 (M.D. Fla. 2002)

The alleged factual basis for my recusal is, “During the May 17, 2023

settlement conference, Magistrate Reinhart became privy to certain confidential 

information.” ECF No. 96 at 2.1 The motion does not identify what the confidential 

information is, nor why me knowing the information would cause an objective, fully 

informed lay observer to entertain significant doubt about my impartiality. It also 

does not allege, let alone establish, that I have personal knowledge of any of the facts 

of this case or any prejudice toward Defendants. I have neither.

WHEREFORE, Defendants’ Motion to Recuse is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach 

County, in the Southern District of Florida, this 3th day of August 2023.

__________________________________

BRUCE E. REINHART

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 Defendant’s Motion is captioned “Defendants’ Motion to Recuse Magistrate 

Reinhart.” In the body of the motion, it again refers to “Magistrate Reinhart.” The 

title “Magistrate” no longer exists in the federal court. It was changed to “Magistrate

Judge” in 1990. Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, 104 Stat. 5089, Pub. L. No. 101-

650, § 321 (1990). The official title is United States Magistrate Judge. Calling such a 

judicial officer a “Magistrate” is equivalent to wrongly calling a United States District 

Judge a “District,” a United States Bankruptcy Judge a “Bankruptcy” or a United 

States Circuit Judge a “Circuit.” Counsel are reminded to use the correct title in the 

future when referring to me or any other United States Magistrate Judge.

Case 9:22-cv-81379-AMC Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2023 Page 2 of 2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 23, 2021

No. 04-21-00544-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.C.S., a Child,

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-PA-01057

Honorable Linda A. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The reporter’s record was originally due to be filed on December 20, 2021. To date, the 

court reporter responsible for preparing the record has neither filed the record nor a notification 

of late record. This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating the appellant’s parental 

rights. Consequently, each extension of the deadline to file the reporter’s record must not exceed 

10 days, see TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c); cumulative extensions must not exceed 30 days, absent 

extraordinary circumstances, see id. R. 28.4(b)(2); and this appeal must be disposed of by this 

court within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal was filed, see TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2. 

Given the time constraints governing the disposition of this appeal, we ORDER the court 

reporter to file the reporter’s record in this court no later than December 30, 2021. Requests for 

extensions of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 23rd day of December, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
*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. 00-50827

Summary Calendar

 

CYRUS R. WARE; MILDRED WARE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ET AL.,

Defendants,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Western District of Texas

(USDC No. SA-99-CV-548-OLG)

_______________________________________________________

March 16, 2001

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
2

Plaintiffs-appellants Cyrus and Mildred Ware seek to set aside the foreclosure

against their family farm. We agree with the judgment of the district court that the statute

of limitations has run. Whether their claim falls under 28 U.S.C. § 2409a or 28 U.S.C.

§ 2410, the limitations period has expired, and the Wares cannot maintain any claim

against the government’s title. See Bank One Texas v. United States, 157 F.3d 397, 402

(5th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32



                            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 on Form 10-Q of Albertson's,  Inc. (the
"Company")  for the period ended April 29, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  we, Lawrence R. Johnston
and Felicia D. Thornton,  Chief Executive  Officer and Chief Financial  Officer,
respectively  of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to our
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  presents,  in all material
     respects,  the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
     as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



June 4, 2004




\S\ Lawrence R. Johnston
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence R. Johnston
Chief Executive Officer



\S\ Felicia D. Thornton
-----------------------------------------
Felicia D. Thornton
Chief Financial Officer
§ 951.5 Complaint of misconduct. ( a ) If the head of any department of the Postal Service has reason to believe, or if complaint be made to him, that any person is guilty of conduct subjecting him to suspension or disbarment, the head of such office shall report the same to the Judicial Officer.
( b ) Whenever any person submits to the Judicial Officer a complaint against any person who has practiced, is practicing or holding himself out as entitled to practice before the Postal Service, the Judicial Officer may refer such complaint to the Chief Inspector for a complete investigation and report.
( c ) At any time, the Judicial Officer may refer the complaint to the General Counsel for the preparation of formal charges to be lodged against and served upon the person against whom the complaint has been made.
EXHIBIT 99.4
                                                                    ------------


In connection with the Annual Report of Western Oil Sands Ltd. (the "Company")
on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") to which this
certificate is an exhibit, I, Guy J. Turcotte, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.


Date:  May 9, 2003                              /s/ Guy J. Turcotte
                                                -------------------------------
                                                Guy J. Turcotte
                                                President and Chief Executive
                                                Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Western Oil Sands Inc. and will be retained by Western Oil Sands
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
0-cr-06240-WPD Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2001 P
0-cr-06240-WPD Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2001 P
0-cr-06240-WPD Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2001 P
#### ELIZABETH HARDEN, Appellant, *v.*ROBERT H. CORBETT, Respondent.

*Action*— *when on contract.*

The plaintiff brought this action to recover money placed by her in the hands of the defendant, as her attorney, alleging in the complaint, that the defendant “ received said moneys and securities as her attorney and agent, and promised and agreed to hold the same for her, and to account for and pay over the same to her when demanded.” The complaint also alleged that the defendant had misapplied and appropriated the moneys to his own use. *Held,*that the action was on contract, and not in tort, and that a reference might properly be ordered therein.

*523Appeal from an order denying a motion for a reference, on the ground that the action was one sounding in tort, and therefore not referable. '

*Geo. L.*Ingraham, for the appellant.

*Robert Sewell,*for the respondent.

Davis, P. J. :

The court below denied the motion for a reference in this action on the ground, as stated in the opinion of the judge, that tbe action was one *“*sounding in tort, and therefore not referable.” As to the character of the action the complaint is controlling. We think the complaint shows a cause of action on contract for the recovery of money, which the plaintiff alleges she.placed in the hands of the defendant as her attorney and counsel, and for which she demands an accounting. She distinctly alleges that the defendant “ received said moneys and securities as her attorney and agent, and promised and agreed to hold the same for her, and to account for and pay over the same to her when demanded’; ” and she alleges a breach of this agreement. It does not change the character of the action, that she also alleges that the defendant has misapplied and appropriated the moneys to his own use; that is merely another form of alleging a breach of the contract. The decision of the court in *Campbell v. Hoge,*a note of which may be found in 4 Ilun, §72, is controlling in this case; and we think the authorities establish that, on allegations such as are contained in this case, the action must be considered as one upon contract. *(Austin*v. *Rawdon,*44 N. Y., 63; *Conaughty*v. *Nichols,*42 id., 83; *Ledwich*v. *McKim,*53 id., 307.) The Special Term having denied the motion on the ground of want of power, the order was clearly appealable. We think the order below should be reversed with ten dollars costs, besides disbursements, and the motion in the court below granted. Unless the parties agree upon a referee, the plaintiff may apply to the Special Term, upon the usual notice, for the appointment of such referee.

Brady and Donohue, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed with ten dollars costs,, besides disbursements, and motion for reference granted.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, (the
Report) of Allied Capital Corporation (the
Registrant), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof; I, Penni F. Roll, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, to the best
of my knowledge, that:



|    |                                                                                                                                          
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements
    of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
    1934, as amended; and



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



| |                      
| | ---------------------
| | /s/ Penni F. Roll    
| |                      
| | Name:   Penni F. Roll
| | Date:     May 9, 2005
§ 5.14 Uniforms and insignia. ( a ) Members of the Auxiliary are authorized to wear uniforms, uniform insignia, and awards as prescribed by the Commandant. Auxiliary uniform insignia indicate, and are solely associated with, Auxiliary offices, titles, designations, qualifications, and achievements. Auxiliary uniform insignia do not indicate rank in any military service or government agency.
( b ) Members of the Auxiliary may purchase from the Coast Guard such uniforms, insignia, and awards as may be authorized by the Commandant.
#### § 101-5.101 Applicability.

The regulations in this part apply to all executive agencies which occupy space in or are prospective occupants of multi-occupant Federal buildings located in the United States. In appropriate circumstances, the centralized services provided pursuant to this part are extended to agencies occupying other Federal buildings in the same geographical area. For purposes of this part, reference to Federal buildings may be deemed to include, when appropriate, leased buildings or specific leased space in a commercial building under the control of GSA.

[56 FR 33873, July 24, 1991]
Reduced state funding for Lane Regional Air Protection Agency

Since mid‐way through the 2007‐2009 biennium, revenues to the General Fund of the State of Oregon

have declined. In response, the state has reduced agency budgets through a variety of measures

including across the board mandatory unpaid furlough leave for state employees, wage and spending

freezes, eliminating normal budget increases for inflation and identifying specific work and associated

spending cuts to agency budgets. Below is a link to the analysis of the Oregon 2011‐2013 Legislatively

Adopted budget published by the Legislative Fiscal Office: http://www.leg.state.or.us/comm/lfo/2011‐

13%20LAB.pdf

For the 2011‐2013 biennial budget, DEQ was required to provide the Legislature with General Fund cut

options. The Legislature reduced agency General Fund by approximately 24 percent overall.  No

particular program was singled out for reductions.  Air Quality’s General Fund was cut by 31 percent,

Water Quality’s by 31 percent and Land Quality by 44 percent, while General Fund for debt service

increased to meet debt repayment obligations. Attachment A provides a summary of the DEQ 2011‐

2013 Legislatively Adopted Budget by program by fund type.

The DEQ Air Quality budget includes state General Fund support for LRAPA as a separate item, Special

Payments, in its biennial budget.  As Air Quality is required to offer General Fund reductions in the

budget development process, a similar percentage of LRAPA General funding is also offered as a

reduction.  Attachment B is the General Fund reduction list that DEQ submitted to the legislature.  

Reduction #3 on the Attachment B list ($112,544 for the biennium), is a 31% reduction to LRAPA General

Fund support. Attachment C is the official Air Quality program budget for 2011‐2013. The amounts that

affect LRAPA are highlighted in yellow.

DEQ’s budget also includes General Fund support for current and former communities that violate

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate. The funding helps the communities to

implement woodstove curtailment efforts to attain and maintain compliance with national standards.  

LRAPA receives a small amount of state General Fund from this funding; however, it is embedded in the

Air Quality Services and Supplies budget and cannot be identified separately. Reduction #4 in

Attachment B is a reduction of $76,105 to the $246,720 biennial funding for this work statewide.

Attachment D provides a summary of the amount of reduced state General Fund support for LRAPA in

fiscal year 2012. In total, DEQ reduced General Fund support to LRAPA by $66,601, $58,981 from direct

General Fund support and $7,620 from woodstove curtailment.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5388 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5388

To designate a building proposed to be located within the boundaries of 
the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, as the ``Herbert H. Bateman 
                 Education and Administrative Center''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 4, 2000

Mr. Young of Alaska (for himself, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Bliley, Mr. Boucher, 
Mr. Davis of Virginia, Mr. Goode, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Moran of Virginia, 
   Mr. Pickett, Mr. Scott, Mr. Sisisky, and Mr. Wolf) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate a building proposed to be located within the boundaries of 
the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, as the ``Herbert H. Bateman 
                 Education and Administrative Center''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF HERBERT H. BATEMAN EDUCATION AND 
              ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER.

    (a) Designation.--A building proposed to be located within the 
boundaries of the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, on Assateague 
Island, Virginia, shall be known and designated as the ``Herbert H. 
Bateman Education and Administrative Center''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the building referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Herbert H. 
Bateman Education and Administrative Center''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32(b)











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 this Yearly Report of New Mexico Software, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Teresa B. Dickey, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/ Teresa B. Dickey


Teresa B. Dickey


Principal Financial Officer





March 30, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 118 (Monday, June 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 37966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15352]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2651]


Indiana Michigan Power Company; Notice of Authorization for 
Continued Project Operation

June 13, 2000.
    On May 19, 1998, Indiana Michigan Power Company, licensee for the 
Elkhart Project No. 2651, filed an application for a new or subsequent 
license pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's 
regulations thereunder. Project No. 2651 is located on the St. Joseph 
River in Elkhart County, Indiana.
    The license for Project No. 2651 was issued for a period ending May 
31, 2000. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires 
the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year 
to year an annual license to the then licensee under the terms and 
conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the 
project is otherwise disposed of as provided in Section 15 or any other 
applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived 
the applicability of Section 15 of the FPA, then, based on Section 9(b) 
of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth 
at 18 CFR 16.21(a)(2000), if the licensee of such project has filed an 
application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to 
operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the 
license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the 
Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project 
has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be 
required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b)(2000), to continue project 
operations until the Commission issues someone else a license for the 
project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to Section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2651 is issued to 
Indiana Michigan Power Company for a period effective June 1, 2000, 
through May 31, 2000, or until the issuance of a new license for the 
project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If 
issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on 
or before May 31, 2001, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 
16.18(c)(2000), an annual license under Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is 
renewed automatically without further order or notice by the 
Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to Section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that Indiana Michigan Power Company is authorized to 
continue operation of the Elkhart Project No. 2651 until such time as 
the Commission acts on its application for subsequent license.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-15352 Filed 6-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M