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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STANLEY A. SLUPKOWSKI, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 09-1394 (RWR)

)

GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT )

OF THE NAVY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

For the reasons stated below, the Court will dismiss the plaintiff’s pro se civil complaint. 

It appears that plaintiff seeks an Order to effect the transfer of records pertaining to his

military service, veterans benefits, social security benefits, and proceedings in other courts in

other jurisdictions “to the District of Columbia for PERMANENT CUSTODY.” Compl. at 2

(emphasis in original). Plaintiff does not articulate clearly the purpose of the transfer of records.

The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by

pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted

by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however,

must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239

(D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint

contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand

for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum
2

standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to

prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the

doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). 

As drafted, the Court concludes that the complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a), and

for this reason, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. 

An final Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Signed this 8 day of September, 2009. th

 /s/ 

RICHARD W. ROBERTS

United States District Judge
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION
I, W. Matt Ralls, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of GlobalSantaFe Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures [asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15 (e)] for the registrantand have:
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) disclosed in the report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.   Date: March 11, 2004           /s/ W Matt Ralls  W. Matt Ralls  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  
2
#### Donald BUCCI, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. VILLAGE OF POLAND; Defendant, Patrick Klingensmith, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-4209.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 3, 2004.

Gordon S. Friedman, Friedman *&*Gilbert, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John T. McLandrich, James A. Climer, Robert F. Cathcart, Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder, Cleveland, OH, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GUY and GILMAN, Circuit Judges; and BARZILAY, Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Judith M. Barzilay, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

ORDER

This cause having come on to be heard upon the record, the briefs and the oral argument of the parties, and upon due consideration thereof,

It is ORDERED that the judgment of the district court be, and it hereby is, *392affirmed upon the opinion of the district court.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         January 30, 2025.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on January 21, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1319 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-1146, K2025-1146.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-01911 Filed 1-29-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Nicole HERRERA and Jorge Herrera, Appellants, v. Amanda FADER, Appellee.

No. 4D18-874

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 18, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
D.R. v. S.M.

2161004

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 19, 2018

Dismissed.
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 1 of 34 PageID 1
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 2 of 34 PageID 2
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 3 of 34 PageID 3
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 4 of 34 PageID 4
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 5 of 34 PageID 5
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 6 of 34 PageID 6
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 7 of 34 PageID 7
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 8 of 34 PageID 8
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 9 of 34 PageID 9
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 10 of 34 PageID 10
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 11 of 34 PageID 11
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 12 of 34 PageID 12
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 13 of 34 PageID 13
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 14 of 34 PageID 14
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 15 of 34 PageID 15
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 16 of 34 PageID 16
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 17 of 34 PageID 17
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 18 of 34 PageID 18
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 19 of 34 PageID 19
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 20 of 34 PageID 20
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 21 of 34 PageID 21
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 22 of 34 PageID 22
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 23 of 34 PageID 23
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 24 of 34 PageID 24
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 25 of 34 PageID 25
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 26 of 34 PageID 26
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 27 of 34 PageID 27
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 28 of 34 PageID 28
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 29 of 34 PageID 29
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 30 of 34 PageID 30
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 31 of 34 PageID 31
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 32 of 34 PageID 32
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 33 of 34 PageID 33
Case 4:05-cv-00385-A Document 1 Filed 06/16/05 Page 34 of 34 PageID 34
Gerald DORMEVIL, Appellant, v. Rachelle DORMEVIL, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2381

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 26, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 17, 2019

Gerald Dormevil, Windermere, Pro se.

Warren T. Channell, of Channell Law Firm, P.A., Winter Garden, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EISNAUGLE, GROSSHANS and SASSO, JJ., concur.
EX PARTE William F. MANN

CR-15-1142

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus pet. dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                         CERTIFICATION OF VICE-PRESIDENT
                                   PRIDE, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pride, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George Powell,
Vice-President 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 the
best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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.



/s/ George A. Powell
-----------------------------------------
George A. Powell
Vice-President, Secretary and Director
March 15, 2007
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of The Wornick Company (the “Company”) for the thirteen andthirty-nine week periods ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brian A. Lutes,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of TheSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.               TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.               Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: November 14, 2006 |   |   |   |                                  |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                    |   | By:    |   | /s/ Brian A. Lutes                    |
|                    |   |   |   | Brian A. Lutes                        |
|                    |   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |

 

Asigned original of this written statement, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided tothe Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DONALD S. BULLARD )

)

V. ) Civil No. 3:06-CV-0110-H

) (ECF)

JOHNSON COUNTY SHERIFF’S )

DEPARTMENT, ET AL )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States Magistrate Judge William F. Sanderson, Jr., made findings, conclusions

and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the

proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court

accepts the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

SO ORDERED this 19 day of July, 2006. th

___________________________________

BAREFOOT SANDERS, SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 

 Case 3:06-cv-00110-H Document 16 Filed 07/19/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 59
Jump to main content


Federal Communications Commission
                            Browse by
                                        **Category**
                                Browse by
                                        **Bureaus & Offices**Menu
                    About the FCC
                                    Proceedings & Actions
                                    Licensing & Databases
                                    Reports & Research
                                    News & Events
                                    For ConsumersConsumer
                                    Enforcement
                                    International
                                    Media
                                    Public Safety
                                    Wireless
                                    Wireline
                                    Offices Home /
								Reports & Research /
								Maps /
                        Page not found
                        The requested page "" could not be found. Federal Communications Commission
                                        45 L Street NE
                                        Washington, DC 20554
                                    Phone: 1-888-225-5322
                                        ASL Video Call: 1-844-432-2275
                                        ASL Video Call: Web
                                        Fax: 1-866-418-0232
                                        Contact UsTwitter
                                        Facebook
                                        Youtube
                                        Instagram
                                Website Policies & Notices
                                        Privacy Policy
                                        FOIA
                                        No Fear Act Data
                                        FCC Digital Strategy
                                        Open Government Directive
                                        Plain Writing Act
                                        RSS Feeds & Email Updates
                                        Disability Rights
                                CATEGORIES
                                        About the FCC
                                        Proceedings & Actions
                                        Licensing & Databases
                                        Reports & Research
                                        News & Events
                                        For Consumers
                                BUREAUS & OFFICES
                                        Consumer
                                        Enforcement
                                        Inspector General
                                        International
                                        Media
                                        Public Safety
                                        Wireless
                                        Wireline
                                        Offices
                            Federal Communications Commission
Order – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JAMES DAVID VAN METER, §

§

Plaintiff, §

v. § Civil Action No. 3:06-CV-0431-L 

§

JUDGE JANICE L. WARDER, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER

Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants

Judge Janice L. Warder (“Warder”), along with her court staff, Defendants Renda Leach (“Leach”)

and Carol-Lou Nicholson (“Nicholson”) (collectively, the “Dallas County Defendants”), alleging

that they conspired to violate his civil rights. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the

court in implementation thereof, this action was referred to the United States magistrate judge for

proposed findings and recommendation. Defendant Warder filed a motion to dismiss or for

summary judgment on immunity grounds, and the Dallas County Defendants filed a motion for

summary judgment on immunity grounds. On June 22, 2006, the Findings and Recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge were filed, to which no objections were filed. The magistrate

judge recommended that the court grant Warder’s motion for summary judgment on immunity

grounds, grant the Dallas County Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on immunity grounds,

and dismiss all claims against Defendants with prejudice on immunity grounds. 

Having reviewed the pleadings, file and record in this case, and the findings and conclusions

of the magistrate judge, the court determines that the findings and conclusions are correct, and are

hereby accepted as those of the court. The court grants Defendant Judge Janice L. Warder’s

 

 Case 3:06-cv-00431-L-BD Document 19 Filed 07/19/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 100
Order – Page 2

Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgement; grants Dallas County Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgement; and dismisses with prejudice all claims against Defendants. Final judgment

will issue by separate document.

It is so ordered this 19th day of July, 2006.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

 

 Case 3:06-cv-00431-L-BD Document 19 Filed 07/19/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 101
# C_2016243EN.01004001.xml

| 4.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/40

---

Action brought on 9 May 2016 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Elho Business & Sport (FRee STyLe)

(Case T-212/16)

(2016/C 243/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elho Business & Sport Vertriebs GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘FRee STyLe’— EU trade mark No 10 317 642

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2016 in Case R 377/2015-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.

| — | Coexistence of the opposing marks and other signs containing the term ‘FREE STYLE’. |
| --- | --- |

—

Coexistence of the opposing marks and other signs containing the term ‘FREE STYLE’.

| — | Failure in the decision of the Board of Appeal to fulfil the obligation to dismiss evidence adduced by the applicant outside the prescribed period as laid down in Article 76(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure in the decision of the Board of Appeal to fulfil the obligation to dismiss evidence adduced by the applicant outside the prescribed period as laid down in Article 76(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---