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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

LAURIE PEEL,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv96/RS-GRJ

THE BANK OF BONIFAY,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER

Before me is Plaintiff’s Second Report Of Case Status (Doc. 11). Pursuant to Local

Rule 16.2(D), it is ordered:

1. This case is dismissed from the active docket of the court.

2. In the event that the settlement is not consummated, the court reserves

jurisdiction, upon motion filed by any party within sixty days of the date of this Order, to

amend or vacate and set aside this Order and reinstate the case.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file of this case for administrative purposes,

and upon the expiration of sixty days without activity, the clerk is directed to close the case

in its entirety for all purposes.

ORDERED on February 24, 2011. 

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:07-cv-03524-GEL Document 5 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. JOHN MARTIN HOSKINS.

(Filed 22 November, 1961.)

Appeal by defendant from *Preyer, J.,*at May Term,T961, of Moore.

Criminal prosecution upon a bill of indictment charging John Martin Hoskins with the crime of involuntary manslaughter on the 12th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1961, and with force and arms at and in the county aforesaid, did “unlawfully, willfully, and felon-iously kill and slay one Melaine Jean Cook, contrary to statute in such case made” etc.

Plea: Not guilty.

This case arose out of a collision between an automobile operated by defendant traveling upon a highway and an automobile operated by the deceased, Melaine Jean Cook, which entered the highway from a side road.

Upon the trial in Superior Court both State and defendant offered evidence.

The case was submitted to the jury under the charge of the court.

Verdict: Guilty.

Judgment: That defendant be confined in the Central Prison for a period of not less than three nor more than four years.

Defendant excepted thereto and appeals therefrom to Supreme Court, and assigns error.

*731
      *Attorney General Bruton, Assistant Attorney General Ralph Moody for the State.*

*H. F. Seawell, Jr. for defendant appellant.*

PER Cukiam.

For conviction the State invokes and relies upon the principle of culpable negligence proximately resulting in the death of the decedent. However, the evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the State, fails to malee out a case.

Culpable negligence has been the subject of uniform decisions of this Court. It suffices here to cite *S. v. Cope,*204 N.C. 28, 167 S.E. 456, where in opinion by *Stacy, C.J.*(1933), the decisions of this Court were assembled and the principles defined and distinguished from actionable negligence in the law of torts.

Moreover, further collaboration to like effect is to be found in opinion of *Parker, J.,*in *S. v. Roop, ante,*607, (1961). On the authority of principles enunciated in these cases and many more of like tenor, the defendant is entitled to an-acquittal. Hence, the motion of defendant for judgment as of nonsuit should have been allowed.

Reversed.
# FILED
January 8, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON JANUA RY 1998 SESSION
MICHAEL L. SOUTH, ) ) Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9701-CR-00029 ) vs. ) SHELBY COUNTY ) STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) No. P-17556 ) Respondent. )

O R D E R
This case represents an appeal from the dismissal of the petitioner’s second petition for post-conv iction relief. The petitioner was originally

convicted of aggravated rape and ag gravated robbery, and received consecutiv e sentences of sixty and thirty years r

espectively. The petit ioner also alleges that he was convicted of aggravated burgl ary and theft. On appeal, this Court affirmed the convictio ns of aggravated rape and ag gravated robbery; the petitioner apparently did not appeal the other two convicti ons. State v. Michael R. South , No. 02C01-9209-CR-00203 ( Tenn. Crim. App., Sept. 15, 1993). The S upreme Court denied applicati on for permission to appeal on March 7, 1994.

After an evidentiary hear ing, the petitioner's fir

st post-conviction peti

tion alleging ineffective as

sistance of counsel was deni ed by the trial court on or about January 18, 1996. This Cour t affirmed the denial on appeal. Michael South v. State , No. 02C01-9609-CR-00312 (Tenn. Crim. App., Feb. 27, 1997). O n September 30, 1996, the petitioner filed this, his second petition for post- conviction relief. The tr ial court dismissed the petition without a hearing, and the case is now before us on ap peal.

T.C.A. § 40-30-202(c) (1996 S upp.) provides that no more than one petition for post-convic

tion relief may be filed attack ing a single judgment , and mandates that the trial court s hall summarily dismis s any second or subsequent petition2

if a prior petition was

filed and resolved on the meri ts by a court of competent jurisdiction. Since t he petitioner previousl y filed a petition that w

as resolved on the merits by the trial c

ourt, the petitioner’s sec ond petition was properl y dismissed. Moreover, T.C.A. § 40-30-206(c) (1996 Supp.) states that the trial court shall dismiss any subsequent petition i f it appears a prior petiti on is already pending i n the Court of Criminal Appeals. At the t ime the petitioner filed his s econd petition in the trial court, his first petition was

on appeal to this Court. F or these reasons, the petiti oner’s second petition for post-convic

tion relief was properl

y dismissed.
We conclude, therefore, that the trial court d id not err in dismissi ng the petitioner’s second petiti on for post-conviction r elief. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the judgment o f the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20 , Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Enter, this the ___ day of Januar y, 1998.

____________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDG E
CONCUR:

______________________________ JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE

______________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Patricia J. Sherer, Appellant

No. 06

- 12

- 00023

- CV v.

James Ray Sherer and Gloria Jean Sherer (f/k/a Gloria Jean Roberson), Individually and James Ray Sherer as Power

- of

Attorney for Bertha M. Sherer, Appellee s Appeal from the 336th District Court of Fannin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 36332 ). Opinion delivered by Justice Carter, Chief

Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find reversible error in the judgment of

the court below. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and render a take nothing

judgment in favor of Patricia Sherer

. We further order that the appell ee s pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED JANUARY 4, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
# CE2013168EN.01014301.xml

| 14.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 168/143 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 168/143

---

Tuesday 13 December 2011Nomination of a member of the Court of Auditors (Mr V. Itälä - FI)

P7_TA(2011)0555

European Parliament decision of 13 December 2011 on the nomination of Ville Itälä as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0346/2011 – 2011/0811(NLE))

2013/C 168 E/29

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0346/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0346/2011),

| — | having regard to the fact that at its meeting of 23 November 2011 the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the fact that at its meeting of 23 November 2011 the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors,

| — | having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0418/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0418/2011),

| A. | whereas Ville Itälä fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU; |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas Ville Itälä fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU;

| 1. | Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council's nomination of Ville Itälä as a Member of the Court of Auditors; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council's nomination of Ville Itälä as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certificationof CFO Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C.Section 1350,**

**As AdoptedPursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of CleanEnergy Combustion Systems, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal yearended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the "Report"), I, Barry A. Sheahan, ChiefFinancial  Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to myknowledge:

> 
(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/*Barry A. Sheahan*

BarryA. Sheahan

ChiefFinancial Officer 

April14, 2004

 
This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extentrequired by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Companyand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

PRESTON H JONES,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00139-MP -WCS

CHRIS DOUGLAS, MEDICAL PERSONNEL, LISA MESSER, FELICIA NOBLES,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 25, Report and Recommendation. The

Magistrate Judge has recommended this case be dismissed for failure to comply with an order to

prosecute. Plaintiff failed to comply with the Order to file a third amended complaint and the

Report and Recommendation has been returned undeliverable via U.S. Mail. As such, Plaintiff

has not objected to the recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed. Finding no plain

error, it is accordingly

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Doc. 25, is ADOPTED

and incorporated herein. 

2. This complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with an

order to prosecute.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
EXHIBIT 32.1



                           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  Quarterly Report of Burrow Mining, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB/A as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Cathy M.T. Ho, President, Chief Executive
Officer and Director of Burrow Mining, Inc., 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)
     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/ Cathy M.T. Ho
                                     ----------------------
                                         Cathy M.T. Ho,
                                         President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                         Director

                                   Date: July 11, 2008
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

SHIRLEY A. HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:10cv24/RS/EMT

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration,

Defendant.

_______________________________ /

O R D E R

Plaintiff has filed a complaint for judicial review of an adverse administrative decision of

the Defendant and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 1, 3). 

Upon review of the motion and attached financial affidavit, the court concludes that Plaintiff

has failed to provide sufficient information for the court to grant the motion. For example, in one

section of the affidavit of financial status Plaintiff indicates that she does not own any real property

while in another section she indicates a monthly mortgage payment of $300.00. Additionally, while

Plaintiff reports debts totaling $20,425.00, she fails to note the amount paid monthly, if any, toward

those debts. Also, while she states that her husband earns $12.70 per hour, Plaintiff fails to identify

his monthly income. Based on the information provided by Plaintiff in her instant application, the

court is unable to determine Plaintiff’s actual monthly income or expenses and thus her eligibility

to proceed in forma pauperis. 

In order to proceed with this case, Plaintiff must either pay the full filing fee of $350.00 or

file a properly completed in forma pauperis application. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is DENIED without

prejudice. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of docketing of this order, Plaintiff shall pay
Page 2 of 2

the full $350.00 filing fee, or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis with a properly

completed affidavit of financial status.

2. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation of dismissal of this

action.

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of February 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No: 5:10cv24/RS/EMT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

GEORGE WEEMS WARD, et al.

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO.: 4:10-CV-157-SPM/WCS

BP PLC, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________

_________________________/

ORDER STAYING ALL PROCEEDINGS

PENDING JPML DECISION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the BP Defendants’

Unopposed Motion to Stay the Proceedings (doc. 4). This case involves a suit to

recover damages arising out of a recent oil rig explosion and ensuing oil spill

from a BP oil well. Defendants request that this Court stay all proceedings in this

case pending a ruling from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”)

on whether several related cases involving this incident, including the instant

case, will be consolidated. The Court finds this request to be reasonable, as the

stay will preserve judicial resources in the event that the cases are ultimately

consolidated. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The BP Defendants’ Motion to Stay (doc. 4) is hereby granted.
Page 2 of 2

2. All proceedings in this case are temporarily stayed, pending the

JPML’s final decision on whether to consolidate the actions arising

from the BP oil rig explosion and subsequent oil spill.

3. Parties shall file a status report as soon as a decision has been

made by the JPML as to the request to consolidate the cases.

DONE AND ORDERED this thirteenth day of May, 2010.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
Exhibit 32.1

Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United
States Code

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Michael J. Hagan, the Chief Executive Officer of NutriSystem, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that based on the undersigneds knowledge:



| | 1) | The Companys Form 10-K Annual Report for the period ended December 31, 2006 (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: February 27, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /S/ MICHAEL J. HAGAN                           
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                           22928
<SECURITIES>                                     10297
<RECEIVABLES>                                    46271
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      26765
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                111092
<PP&E>                                           61760
<DEPRECIATION>                                   26482
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  161136
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            35031
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          9362
<OTHER-SE>                                      105836
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    161136
<SALES>                                          59741
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 60811
<CGS>                                            42870
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    53340
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   519
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 136
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   6816
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2037
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               4779
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4779
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARIA CYNTHIA BUSTAMANTE,

Appellant,

§

§

No. 08-18-00037-CR

Appeal from the

V.

§

County Criminal Court No. 4

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

§

of El Paso County, Texas

§

Appellee.

§

(TC# 20140C06099)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 230 (Thursday, December 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 72107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23535]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

Materials Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially 
Closed Meeting

    The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on December 8, 
2005, 10:30 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room B841A, 14th Street 
between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The 
Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export 
Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the 
level of export controls applicable to materials and related 
technology.

Agenda

Public Session

    1. Opening remarks and introductions.
    2. Presentation by Boeing.

Closed Session

    3. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the 
provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 
sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
    A limited number of seats will be available during the public 
session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent 
time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the 
Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or 
after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public 
presentation materials to Committee members, the materials should be 
forwarded prior to the meeting to Ms. Yvette Springer at 
[email protected].
    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of 
the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on November 
18, 2005, pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, as amended, that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters 
the premature disclosure of which would likely frustrate the 
implementation of a proposed agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public 
meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The 
remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-4814.

    Dated: November 28, 2005.
Yvette Springer,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-23535 Filed 11-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-M
```