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

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Judicial Conference of the United States.

# ACTION:

Advisory Committee on Civil Rules; notice of open meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules will hold an in-person meeting in hybrid format with remote attendance options on April 1, 2025 in Atlanta, GA. The meeting is open to the public for observation but not participation. Please see the Supplementary Information section in this notice for instructions on observing the meeting.

# DATES:

April 1, 2025 (meeting date) and March 25, 2025 (registration deadline for in-person observation).

# ADDRESSES:

                        An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at:                         *https://www.uscourts.gov/​forms-rules/​records-rules-committees/​agenda-books.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Shelly Cox, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820,                         *RulesCommittee_Secretary@ao.uscourts.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

To observe the meeting in person, individuals must contact the office listed above by 5 p.m. (eastern time) on March 25, 2025. After this deadline, only remote observation is permitted. Remote registration is available until the meeting date, provided it is completed before the projected end time.

(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.)

Dated: January 21, 2025.

Shelly L. Cox,

Management Analyst, Rules Committee Staff.

[FR Doc. 2025-01708 Filed 1-23-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Danny TRIANA, Appellee.

No. 3D18-0977

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 13, 2019

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Jeffrey R. Geldens, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**State v. Aguilar*, 775 So.2d 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
SUCCESSION OF Paul VAN THORNTON

NO. 2019-C-0576

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2019

*893Denied.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1247 KAH 10-01119**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK EX REL. DEXTER MURRAY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V ORDER

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

WILLIAM D. BRODERICK, JR., ELMA, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (FRANK BRADY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered February 24, 2010 in a habeas corpus proceeding. The judgment denied the petition.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: November 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
Arthur MOBLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3301

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 7, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Cedric KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2835

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 4, 2019

Paula C. Coffman and Jeffrey D. Deen, Office of Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, Orlando, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, C.J., ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
# m8616.docx

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 20.9.2017 C(2017) 6463 final To the notifying part y Subject : Case M. 8616 – PARTNERS GROUP / CIVICA Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1 )( b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 1 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area 2 Dear Sir or Madam, 1. On 25 August 2017 , the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which certain investment funds advised and/or managed by Partners Group AG or its affiliates (‘Partners Group’, Switzerland) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1 )( b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Civica Group Ltd (‘ Civica ’, United Kingdom) by way of a purchase of shares . 3 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: - for Partners Group : private markets investments . - for Civica : provision of software and related IT services 3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5 ( c ) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 . 4 4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1 )( b) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement . For the Commission
(Signed)
Johannes LAITENBERGER Director - General
(1)
OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ( the ' Merger Regulation ' ). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( ' TFEU ' ) has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of ' Community ' by ' Union ' and ' common market ' by ' internal market ' . The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.
(2) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3 ( the ' EEA Agreement ' ).
(3) Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 290 , 1 . 9 . 2017 , p. 15 .
(4)
OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 .
Exhibit 26 

Document Sought to Be Sealed 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 937-7 Filed 11/28/18 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAWN DAMON BARTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. SWIWET BINNING, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00155-WHO (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Dkt. No. 56

This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice, pursuant to 

plaintiff Barth’s request for voluntary dismissal (Dkt. No. 57). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(a)(2). Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice. (Dkt. 

No. 56.) 

The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of 

defendants, and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2018

_________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF RECEIVER



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, George C. Swarts, Receiver of the Company, certify
that:



1. the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the
Company for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999 and 1998, respectively (the Form 10-KSB), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and



2. the information contained in the 10-KSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|/s/ George C. Swarts              
|----------------------------------
|George C. Swarts                  
|Receiver (Chief Financial Officer)
|                                  
|Date: November 14, 2003
1 The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Henry



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-4326

___________ Frank Watts, II, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States U.S. Postal Service; Pulaski County * District Court for the Regional Detention Facility, Postal * Eastern District of Arkansas Service; Arkansas Department of * Correction, Postal Service; U.S. * [UNPUBLISHED] District Court, Clerk's Office, * Eastern District of Arkansas, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: February 7, 2000 Filed: March 28, 2000

___________ Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Frank Watts, II, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court 1 for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissing before service ofL. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- process his civil rights action against the United States Postal Service, the Clerk’s Officeof the Eastern District of Arkansas, a county jail, the administration of the Arkansas Department of

Correction (ADC), and the post office and administration of one of ADC’s units. Watts asserted claims for retaliation, denial of access to the courts, and conspiracy, all arising out of the handling of his legal mail. He sought $200 million in damages. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Specifically, we conclude Watts’s suit fails because, among other reasons, the named defendants are not liable, on the basis alleged, under either 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See Monell v. Department

of Soc. Servs. , 436 U.S. 658, 691, 694 (1978) (municipalities cannot be heldliable under § 1983 on respondeat superior theory unless injury was inflicted pursuant to execution of municipal policy or custom); Buford v. Runyon , 160 F.3d 1199, 1203 n.7 (8th Cir. 1998) ( Bivens action cannot be premised on respondeat superior liability; defendants are liable for their personal acts only). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a). A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AS OF AND
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                4,855
<SECURITIES>                                         45,339
<RECEIVABLES>                                         5,525
<ALLOWANCES>                                             80
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     55,719
<PP&E>                                              293,559
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (41,814)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      359,838
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                23,618
<BONDS>                                             214,575
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                91,563
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                252
<OTHER-SE>                                           14,419
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        359,838
<SALES>                                              18,587
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     18,587
<CGS>                                                21,212
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        21,212
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     10,362
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  (2,636)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (10,351)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (3,629)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (6,722)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (6,722)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.79)



</TABLE>
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC., 

 Defendant. 

 Case No. 3:17-CV-00039-JD 

 [PROPOSED] AMENDED 

 SCHEDULING ORDER 

The Court sets the following case management deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10. The parties are advised to review and comply with the 

Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases, Standing Order for Discovery in Civil Cases, and Standing 

Order for Civil Jury Trials. 

Event Deadline 

Expert disclosures July 6, 2018 

Rebuttal expert disclosures July 27, 2018 

Expert discovery cut-off August 24, 2018 

Last day to file dispositive and Daubert motions September 21, 2018 

Pretrial conference October 26, 2018 at 1:30pm 

Trial December 3, 2018 at 9:00am 

All dates set by the Court should be regarded as firm. Counsel may not modify these 

dates by stipulation without leave of court. Requests for continuances are disfavored, and 

November 29, 2018 at 1:30 pm January 14, 2019 at 9:00 am

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 149 Filed 06/07/18 Page 1 of 2
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

scheduling conflicts that are created subsequent to the date of this order by any party, counsel or 

party controlled expert or witness will not be considered good cause for a continuance. Sanctions 

may issue for a failure to follow a scheduling or other pretrial order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(f)(1)(C). 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: 

 

JAMES DONATO 

United States District Judge 

June 7, 2018

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

APPROVED

Judge James Donato

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 149 Filed 06/07/18 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Annual Report of Frontline Communications Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Stephen J. Cole-Hatchard, as Chief Executive Officer and 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:

          (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.


                                                    /s/ Stephen J. Cole-Hatchard
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Stephen J. Cole-Hatchard
                                                    Chief Executive Officer and
                                                    President

                                                    April 15, 2003
Marcellus CHARLEMAGNE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-741

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 28, 2019

Marcellus Charlemagne, Crawfordville, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, COHEN and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Natasha COTTRELL v. STATE

CR-16-1246

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Maurice ELLIS, et al., Appellants, v. HOME INVESTMENT FUND IV, LP, et al., Appellees.

No. 3D17-2758

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Aaron ROGERS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 5D19-782

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 14, 2019

Aaron Rogers, Clermont, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General Tallahassee, and, Marjorie Vincent-Tripp, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the August 30, 2018, judgment and sentence rendered in Case No. 2017-300370-CFDB in the Circuit Court in and for Volusia County, Florida. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

EVANDER, C.J., ORFINGER and COHEN, JJ., concur.
COVENANT BAPTIST CHURCH, INC., etc., Appellant, v. VASALLO CONSTRUCTION, INC., etc., et al., Appellees.

Nos. 3D18-1315 & 3D18-1060

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 22, 2019.

John A. Jabro, for appellant.

Hill, Ward & Henderson, P.A., Marie A. Borland, and B. Ben Dachepalli (Tampa); Rembold Hirschman, Scott D. Rembold and Ashley A. Graham, for appellees.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE, and MILLER, JJ.

MILLER, J.

Under Florida law, "[w]hen a newly finished roof leaks it is not only apparent, but obvious, that someone is at fault." *Kelley v. Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cty.*, 435 So.2d 804, 806 (Fla. 1983) (citation omitted). Thus, "where a cause of action [is] specifically based on leaking roofs ... the statute [of limitations] begins to run when an owner has notice of the first [roof]

*237leak." *Dubin v. Dow Corning Corp.*, 478 So.2d 71, 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Here, it is well-documented that appellant had knowledge of the roof leaks by 2006, yet failed to file suit until 2011. Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment under review. *See* § 95.11(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2018) ; *Kelley*, 435 So.2d at 806 (holding the claim was barred by the four-year statute of limitations where "the school board had knowledge of the defective roofs sufficient to put it on notice that it had, or might have had, a cause of action" since the roofs began to leak shortly after being finished, "more than four years prior to" filing the action); *Conquistador Condo. VIII Ass'n, Inc. v. Conquistador Corp.*, 500 So.2d 346, 347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (holding summary judgment based on the four-year statute of limitations was proper where the law suit was not filed until 1984 and the trial court concluded that "as a matter of law appellant had notice in 1979 that [the roof leaks] existed"); *Dubin*, 478 So.2d at 73 ("[T]he cause of action accrued and the statute [of limitations] began to run in the summer ... when [appellant] had notice of the first [roof] leaks. Therefore, because appellant failed to file his complaint before the expiration of the four-year statute of limitations ... we must affirm" the trial court's order granting summary judgment.); *Havatampa Corp. v. McElvy, Jennewein, Stefany & Howard, Architects/Planners, Inc.*, 417 So.2d 703, 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) ("On the day appellant took occupancy of the facility, it knew [the roof was leaking] .... Appellant cannot rely on a lack of knowledge of the specific cause of the problem to protect it against the expiration of the four year statute of limitations."); *K/F Dev. & Inv. Corp. v. Williamson Crane & Dozer Corp.*, 367 So.2d 1078, 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) ("The evidence is clear that the purchaser knew or should have known of the alleged defect when the roof began to leak, and this was more than four years prior to the filing of the law suit.").

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)
  (1)
    
    the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: March 16, 2010
    /s/ S.P. Johnson IVName:
    S.P. Johnson IVPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### L. C. Morrow, *Appellant,*v. A. B. Bates, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed July 22, 1927.

*Williams & Perkins,*for Appellant;

*Locke E. Parker,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree 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 decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.