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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION

TAMMY SANDERS, §

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § No. 3:05-CV-1061-N

§

YALL POLICEMAN, et al., §

Defendants. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the District 

Court in implementation thereof, this case has been referred to the United States

Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge, as evidenced by his signature thereto, are as follows:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Plaintiff filed her complaint along with a civil cover sheet on May 23, 2005. The 

complaint is illegible and Plaintiff has checked every possible box under heading IV of

the cover sheet, which is intended to indicate the nature of the suit filed.

The court has not issued process in this case. However, on June 6, 2005, the

magistrate judge issued an order to Plaintiff directing her to file an amended complaint

which was legible and complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). As of the date of this

recommendation, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 

Findings and Conclusions: Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) allows a court to dismiss an action sua

sponte for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court

order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir.1998). "This authority [under Rule

41(b)] flows from the court's inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue

delays in the disposition of pending cases." Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01061-N Document 7 Filed 07/20/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 20
2

399, 401 (5th Cir.1985)(citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct.

1386(1962)).

Because Plaintiff has been given ample opportunity to file an amended complaint,

but has failed or refused to do so, Plaintiff's claims against all parties should be dismissed

for want of prosecution.

RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommenced that Plaintiff's claims against

Defendants be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

A copy of this recommendation shall be transmitted to Plaintiff.

Signed this 20th day of July, 2005.

_____________________________

Wm. F. Sanderson, Jr.

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE

In the event that you wish to object to this recommendation, you are hereby

notified that you must file your written objections within ten days after being served with

a copy of this recommendation. Pursuant to Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79

F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc), a party's failure to file written objections to these

proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within such ten-day period may bar a de

novo determination by the district judge of any finding of fact or conclusion of law and

shall bar such party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the

unobjected to proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the district

court.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01061-N Document 7 Filed 07/20/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 21
<PAGE>



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                               SECTION 302 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Robert Joseph Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Supreme
Holdings, Inc.;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does 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
annual report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

         4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

                  a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

                  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

                  c. presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

         5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

                  a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

                  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls;

         6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in
this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: May 30, 2003

By: /s/ Robert Joseph Wilson
  ---------------------------
Robert Joseph Wilson
Chief Financial Officer
EX PARTE GRAND RENTAL STATION

(In re: Miranda Cherie Davis v. Grand Rental Station)

2170170

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

December 20, 2017

Dismissed.
S. 957 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Sunday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty one 

An Act 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to ensure that certain medical facilities 

of the Department of Veterans Affairs have physical locations for the disposal 

of controlled substances medications. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF PERIODS DURING WHICH ANY INDIVIDUAL MAY DISPOSE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 

MEDICATIONS AT FACILITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

Section 3009 of the Johnny Isakson and David P. Roe, M.D. 

Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act of 2020 (Public 

Law 116–315; 38 U.S.C. 8110 note) is amended— 

(1) by redesignating subsection (b) and (c) as subsections 

(c) and (d), respectively; and 

(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new subsection (b): 

‘‘(b) DESIGNATION OF PERIODS FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL TO DISPOSE

OF MEDICATION.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall designate periods 

during which any individual may dispose of controlled substances medications at a covered Department medical facility. 

‘‘(2) PUBLIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGNS.—The Secretary may 

carry out public information campaigns regarding the periods 

designated under paragraph (1).’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Case 3:04-cv-02754-M-BD Document 140 Filed 09/15/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1876
STATE of Louisiana v. Tyrek MARTIN

NO. 2019-KK-0355

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 24, 2019

*306Denied.
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. James M. HARVEY, Appellee.

No. 4D15-4724

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 30, 2019]

B. Richard Young, Adam A. Duke, Lindsay M. Mark, Courtney F. Smith, and Cody S. Pflueger of Young, Bill, Boles, Palmer & Duke, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Philip M. Burlington, Bard D. Rockenbach and Andrew A. Harris of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Kimberly L. Boldt, Jeffrey D. Mueller, and Mario R. Giommoni of Boldt Law Firm, P.A., Boca Raton, and Fred Cunningham, Sean Domnick, and Greg Yaffa of Domnick Cunningham & Whalen, Palm Beach Gardens, for appellee.

***ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT***

Levine, J.

This matter is before us on remand from the Florida Supreme Court following its decision in *Harvey v. GEICO General Insurance Co.* , 259 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2018), which quashed *GEICO General Insurance Co. v. Harvey* , 208 So.3d 810, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). In accordance with the supreme court's mandate, we remand and direct the trial court to reinstate the jury verdict and final judgment.

*Affirmed and remanded with instructions.*

Gerber, C.J., and Klingensmith, J., concur.
In the INTEREST OF I.N., a Child.

K.O., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D18-2021

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 9, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Tyler Len REYNOLDS v. STATE

CR-16-0147

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
# C_2017374EN.01002301.xml

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/23

---

Action brought on 15 September 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-543/17)

(2017/C 374/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, L. Nicolae and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing, by 1 January 2016 at the latest, to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks (OJ 2014 L 155, p. 1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing, by 1 January 2016 at the latest, to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks (OJ 2014 L 155, p. 1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of that directive;

| — | Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a fine in the sum of EUR 54 639,36 per diem from the date of delivery of the judgment in this action for failure to fulfil the obligation of communicating the measures transposing Directive 2014/61; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a fine in the sum of EUR 54 639,36 per diem from the date of delivery of the judgment in this action for failure to fulfil the obligation of communicating the measures transposing Directive 2014/61;

| — | Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By virtue of Article 13 of Directive 2014/61, the Member States were required to adopt the national transposing measures by 1 January 2016 at the latest. The Commission is of the view that the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision.

In its action, the Commission proposes that a daily fine of EUR 54 639,36 be imposed on the Kingdom of Belgium.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION 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 of BRAZIL GOLD CORP. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J Roland Vetter, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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











Date: February 18, 2011








By:           /s/J Roland Vetter


J Roland Vetter


Chief Financial Officer/Principal Financial Officer, principal accounting offic
EXHIBIT
32.1











CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
David Zaikin, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Siberian Energy Group Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30,
2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Siberian Energy Group Inc.





Date:
August 11, 2009





By: /s/ David
Zaikin


David
Zaikin


Chief
Executive Officer


(Principal
Executive Officer)
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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Language Line, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter
ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Matthew T. Gibbs II, Chief Financial 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:



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



|(iv) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Language Line, Inc.
|---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: September 19, 2006



/s/ Matthew T. Gibbs IIMatthew T. Gibbs IIChief Financial Officer and Director(Principal Financial Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of this Report.
Reflections on the Thirteenth Anniversary of the September 11 Attacks

Statement by Jill Long Thompson, Board Chair

Farm Credit Administration Board Meeting

September 11, 2014

Thirteen years ago today our nation changed forever. The attacks on September 11 took 2,977

lives.

While these brutal attacks appalled and frightened, they also strengthened our resolve to stand 

up to those who threaten us. And they strengthened our appreciation for the kind of country we 

live in and the democratic and capitalist ideals upon which our nation is built.

We at the Farm Credit Administration have the privilege of regulating a government-sponsored 

enterprise that reflects these ideals and adds value to our capitalist economy. As cooperatives, 

the banks and lending associations of the Farm Credit System are democratic organizations, 

owned and controlled by their borrowers. Just as our democratic nation champions the ideal of 

equal opportunity for all, the System’s banks and associations are open to all who are 

creditworthy and meet the eligibility requirements to borrow from the System. 

As we go forward in time, further and further from that tragic day, I hope we will never forget the 

lives lost and the lessons learned. I hope we will never lose our appreciation for the great 

fortune we enjoy as Americans. And I hope that we, as citizens of this great democracy, will 

never cease to work toward the ideals for which our country stands.
#### A. B. Martinez, C. C. Throwbridge, Elizabeth Johnson, alias Elizabeth Throwbridge, and C. N. Johnson, *Plaintiffs in Error,*v. State of Florida, *Defendant in in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed November 16, 1927.

*Dickenson <& Diaz,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Fred PL. Davis,*Attorney General, and *Boy Campbell,*Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.-

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007as filed by Las Vegas Sands Corp. with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Las Vegas Sands Corp.        Date: November 9, 2007 By:  /s/ Sheldon G. Adelson    Sheldon G. Adelson    Chief Executive Officer
----

----

| (3) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (4) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      May 15, 2008 | /s/ Carmen J. Lotito      (“Tony”)                    |   |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                    | Carmen      J. Lotito ("Tony")                                    |   |
|                    | Executive      Vice President - Business Development and Director |   |
|                    | (Principal      Financial and Accounting Officer)                 |   |

----

----
Daniel DIVICH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3219

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 31, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE Samuel Allan MCCORMICK

CR-16-1228

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 8, 2017 Reh. denied December 5, 2017

Mand. pet. dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

RODNEY D. DAVIS, 876067, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 3:05-CV-1314-P

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas ) ECF

Dept. Of Criminal Justice, Correctional )

Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER

After making the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court finds that the

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are

adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

Signed this 13th day of September, 2006.

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01314-P Document 12 Filed 09/13/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 78
Case 3:04-cv-00677-B Document 17 Filed 07/19/04 Page 1 of 2 PageID 190
 

 Case 3:04-cv-00677-B Document 17 Filed 07/19/04 Page 2 of 2 PageID 191
1The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 00-2232NE

_____________

Robert J. Prokop, M.D., *

*

Appellant, *

* On Appeal from the United

v. * States District Court

* for the District of

USDA, United States of America, * Nebraska.

acting by and through the United *

States Department of Agriculture and * [Not To Be Published]

Farm Service Agency, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: April 30, 2001

 Filed: May 10, 2001

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and FAGG,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Prokop appeals from the District Court’s1 decision affirming the United

States Department of Agriculture’s classification of his property as “farmed wetland

pasture.” For the reasons explained in the District Court’s thorough opinion, we
-2-

conclude substantial evidence in the record supports the agency’s finding that the

property met the criteria for farmed wetland pasture. The agency’s decision was not

arbitrary or capricious. See 7 C.F.R. § 12.2(a) (2001) (definition of farmed wetland

pasture); Downer v. United States, 97 F.3d 999, 1002 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)

(court looks to whether agency considered all factors Congress intended it to consider,

whether agency considered factors Congress did not intend it to consider, and whether

there is lack of rational connection between facts found and decision made). We have

considered Prokop’s due process arguments and conclude that they fail, also for the

reasons laid out in the District Court’s opinion. 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.