alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________ BRETT ANDREW: HOUSE OF NELSON,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
DANIEL AUSTIN WALZL/STATE OF COLORADO , Defendant

- Appellee. No. 20

- 1425 (D.C. No. 1:20

- CV

- 01012

- LTB

- GPG) (D. Colo.)

_________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGME NT *

_________________________________ Before BRISCOE , BALDOCK , and CARSON , Circuit Judges.

_________________________________ Pro se Plaintiff

- Appellant brought this action in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado seeking to confirm an alleged $ 6,898,000 arbitration award against Defendant under the Federal Arbitration Act. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and we affirmed. See Nelson v. Walzl , 829 F. App’x 872 (10th Cir. 2020).

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

** Aft er examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered subm itted without oral argument. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### January 27, 2021 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court2 Less than two months later, Plaintiff filed three post

- judgment motions, each of
which the district court denied. This appeal follows, but Plaintiff merely reiterates the

same arguments we rejected in his prior appeal to this court. See id. That is, Plaintiff alleges the district court erred in concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction
because , by his argument, subject matter jurisdiction is provided for in 9 U.S.C. § 9. Plaintiff presents no new arguments, facts, or law. Because we thoroughly
addressed and rejected his contentions in Nelson v. Walzl , 829 F. App’x 872 (10th Cir. 2020), we se e no useful purpose in writing at length. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIR M

. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED

. Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge
<PAGE>

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 amended Annual Report of One Voice Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Dean Weber, Chief Executive Officer 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 result of operations of
          the Company.


A signed original of this written statement required by section 9.06 has been
provided to One Voice and will be retained by One Voice and furnished to the
Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




Dated: June 3, 2005


                                       /s/ Dean Weber
                                       -----------------------------
                                       Name: Dean Weber
                                       Title: President, Chief Executive Officer
                                              and Director
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

COREY E WASHINGTON,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00013-MP-AK

R P TIFFT,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Report and Recommendation, Doc. 4, regarding the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed by Corey E. Washington, Doc. 1. The Magistrate

Judge has recommended the case be transferred to the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Florida. The Southern District, the district of conviction, would appear to be

the most convenient for witnesses should an evidentiary hearing be necessary. No objections to

the recommendation have been filed, 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. 4, is ADOPTED

and incorporated herein. 

2. This case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Florida for all further proceedings. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of February, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
#### STATE v. HILL

No. 164 PC.

Case below: 49 N.C. App. 692.

Application by defendant for further review denied 8 July 1981.
# C_2011297EN.01000201.xml

| 8.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/2

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty)

2011/C 297/02

| Date of adoption of the decision | 12.9.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | SA.33137 (11/N) |
| Member State | Italy |
| Region | Calabria | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Programma di Sviluppo Rurale Calabria 2007-2013 [Decisione C(2010) 1164 del 26 febbraio 2010]: regime di aiuto, misura 226 «Ricostituzione del potenziale forestale e interventi preventivi». |
| Legal basis | PSR Calabria 2007-2013, allegato X — Scheda di misura 226 [articolo 36, b), vi); articolo 48 del regolamento (CE) n. 1698/2005] |
| Type of measure | Scheme | — |
| Objective | Forestry |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | | Overall budget: EUR 5 million |

Date of adoption of the decision

12.9.2011

Reference number of State Aid

SA.33137 (11/N)

Member State

Italy

Region

Calabria

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Programma di Sviluppo Rurale Calabria 2007-2013 [Decisione C(2010) 1164 del 26 febbraio 2010]: regime di aiuto, misura 226 «Ricostituzione del potenziale forestale e interventi preventivi».

Legal basis

PSR Calabria 2007-2013, allegato X — Scheda di misura 226 [articolo 36, b), vi); articolo 48 del regolamento (CE) n. 1698/2005]

Type of measure

Scheme

—

Objective

Forestry

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 5 million

| | Annual budget: EUR 5 million |
| --- | --- |

Annual budget: EUR 5 million

Intensity

80 %

Duration (period)

Until 31.12.2013

Economic sectors

Forestry and logging

Name and address of the granting authority

| Regione Calabria |
| --- |
| Dipartimento Agricoltura, Foreste e Forestazione |
| Via Molè |
| 88100 Catanzaro CZ |
| ITALIA |

Regione Calabria

Dipartimento Agricoltura, Foreste e Forestazione

Via Molè

88100 Catanzaro CZ

ITALIA

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm

---
Case 1:07-cr-00369-DAB Document 3 Filed 05/03/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cr-00369-DAB Document 3 Filed 05/03/2007 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

PENSACOLA MOTOR SALES,

a Florida corporation, d/b/a

BOB TYLER TOYOTA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:09cv571/RS-MD

EASTERN SHORE TOYOTA, LLC,

an Alabama Limited Liability Company;

DAPHNE AUTOMOTIVE, LLC, an

Alabama Limited Liability Company;

SHAWN ESFAHANI, Individually;

and DAPHNE ENTERPRISES, INC.,

an Alabama Corporation,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me are Defendants’ bill of costs (Doc. 177) and Plaintiff’s motion to 

stay the bill of costs (Doc. 179). 

IT IS ORDERED:

1.) Plaintiff’s motion to stay (Doc. 179) is denied.
2.) The Clerk is directed to tax costs against Plaintiff in the amount of

$2,565.10 for Defendants’ expenses for printed or electronically 

recorded transcripts obtained for use in the case.

3.) Taxation of costs is denied as to Defendants’ expenses for travel, 

Westlaw research, and long-distance phone calls.

4.) Taxation of costs is denied as to the $993.05 Defendants claim in 

copy expenses because Defendants have failed to demonstrate 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1920(4) that these copies were “necessarily 

obtained for use in the case.” The Clerk may consider a supplemental 

bill of costs for copies should Defendants submit proper itemized 

documentation of their copy expenses.

ORDERED on November 12, 2010.

/s/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT J
# C_2011334EN.01000301.xml

| 15.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 334/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 334/3

---

Notice for the attention of the persons to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision 2011/736/CFSP, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria apply

2011/C 334/02

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in Annex I to Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision 2011/736/CFSP (1), and in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2011 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Syria.

1

2

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons that appear in the above mentioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/273/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria. The grounds for designations of those persons appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 6 of the Regulation).

The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG K Coordination |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG K Coordination

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 296, 15.11.2011, p. 56.

1

(2)  OJ L 296, 15.11.2011, p. 4.

2

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JOSHUA EUGENE ROBINSON,

Petitioner,

v. Case No.: 3:10cv101 RV/MD

KENNETH S. TUCKER,

Respondent.

_________________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated March 2, 2012. (Doc. 36). Petitioner has been furnished a copy

of the Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1).

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and no objections having been

filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1), challenging

the conviction and sentence in State of Florida v. Robinson in the Circuit Court of Escambia

County, Florida, case no. 04-CF2689, is DENIED and the clerk is directed to close the file.

3. Certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of April, 2012.

s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00101-RV-MD Document 50 Filed 04/09/12 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           922,523
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      56,120
<MORTGAGE>                                     212,075
<REAL-ESTATE>                                   33,268
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               1,337,452
<CASH>                                          16,880
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             276,189
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         289,890
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,388,047
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              1,282,214
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  33,896
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           25,065
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                278,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           16,603
<PREFERRED>                                     20,999
<COMMON>                                        73,073
<OTHER-SE>                                     430,794
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,388,047
<PREMIUMS>                                      64,053
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             24,359
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              (8,344)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  44,534
<BENEFITS>                                      35,488
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     10,377
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            36,569
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,462
<INCOME-TAX>                                       942
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,520
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,520
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### ALMETA SAUNDERS v. CHARLOTTE LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

(Filed 22 November, 1967.)

1. Insurance § 3—

An insurance company generally bas tbe right to fix the conditions upon which it will become liable, and the patron the right to accept or refuse them.

2. Insurance § 35—

The policy in suit provided additional benefits if insured sustained visible bodily injuries solely through external, violent and accidental means, resulting directly and independently of all other causes in death. The evidence was to the effect that the five-month-old insured was found dead in his bed in which he had slept with his eight-year-old sister, and the only evidence as to the cause of death was that the child had smothered. *Held:*The evidence fails to bring insurer’s liability within the additional coverage.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Latham, S.J.,*and a jury at the 27 February 1967 Civil Session, Superior Court of RaNBOLph County.

A little five-months-old boy was insured by his mother, to the extent of $500.00, with defendant Insurance Company. The policy provided that if the insured “sustained . . . visible bodily injuries, solely through external, violent and accidental means, resulting, directly and independently of all other causes, in the death of the insured”, the company would pay an additional benefit of $500.00.

Early in the morning of 29 July 1963, the little fellow was found dead in his bed by his mother. He had slept the night before with his eight-year-old sister. No signs of violence were found on his body, and no autopsy was performed.

The coroner, over the objection of defendant, gave it as his opinion that the baby died by smothering.

The defendant paid the beneficiary $500.00 under the policy, and returned some disputed premiums, but refused to pay double indemnity benefits. The plaintiff sued for them and, upon nonsuit, appealed.

*111
      *Ottway Burton, Attorney for plaintiff appellant.*

*J. J. Shields, Attorney for defendant appellee.*

Pee Curiam.

The coroner, who was not qualified as an expert, opined that the child died by smothering. No signs of violence were found on the body. No other evidence of the cause of death or the condition of the body was offered.

An insurance company generally has the right to fix the conditions upon which it will become liable, and the patron has the right to accept or refuse them. Here the policy is explicit that the defendant will pay additional (double indemnity) benefits only upon conditions not here shown. There was no evidence of “visible bodily injuries” nor of “violent, external means” causing the death of the insured.

Under well stated opinions of this Court, as set forth in *Langley v. Insurance Co.,*261 N.C. 459, 135 S.E. 2d 38, and *Henderson v. Indemnity Co.,*268 N.C. 129, 150 S.E. 2d 17, the plaintiff cannot recover.

In the judgment of nonsuit, there was

No error.
<PAGE>

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 the amended Annual Report of One Voice Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Rahoul Sharan, Chief Financial Officer 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by section 9.06 has been
provided to One Voice and will be retained by One Voice and furnished to the
Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




Dated: June 3, 2005


                                                 /s/ Rahoul Sharan
                                                 -----------------
                                                 Name: Rahoul Sharan
                                                 Title: Chief Financial Officer
                                                        and Director
Exhibit 21.1



|                        |  |                        |  |                               
|----------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | ------------------------------
|                        |  |                       
|Corporate Subsidiaries  |  | State of Incorporation |  | Ownership by NutriSystem, Inc.
|                        |  |                       
|NutriSystem Direct, LLC |  | Pennsylvania           |  | 100%                          
|                        |  |                       
|NutriSystem Media, LLC  |  | Nevada                 |  | 100%                          
|                        |  |                       
|Nutri/System IPHC, INC. |  | Delaware               |  | 100%                          
|                        |  |                       
|Slim and Tone, LLC      |  | Pennsylvania           |  | 100%
# C_2011019EN.01000801.xml

| 20.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/8

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

2011/C 19/08

1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), the European Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

1

2.   Procedure

Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), N-105 4/92, 1049 Brussels, BELGIUM (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Silicon carbide | People's Republic of China | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 1264/2006 (OJ L 232, 25.8.2006, p. 1) | 26.8.2011 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry

Silicon carbide

People's Republic of China

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 1264/2006 (OJ L 232, 25.8.2006, p. 1)

26.8.2011

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

1

(2)  Fax +32 22956505.

2

---