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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

TRUST FINANCIAL, A MORTGAGE

COMPANY, LLC, a Texas Limited

Liability Company,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 1:10cv49-SPM/AK

FORT ATKINSON PLANTATION, LLC.,

a Florida Limited Liability Company, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Upon consideration, the Agreed Motion of Defendants Sherrod and

Campbell for Enlargement of Time to Serve a Response to Plaintiff’s Complaint

(doc. 16) is granted. Defendants Sherrod and Campbell shall have up to and

including June 11, 2010, to file and serve their response to the complaint.

SO ORDERED this 3rd day of June, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 1 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 2 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 3 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 4 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 5 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 6 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 7 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 8 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 9 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 10 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 11 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 12 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 13 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 14 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 15 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 16 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 17 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 18 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 19 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 20 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 21 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 22 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 23 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 24 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 25 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 26 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 27 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 28 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 29 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 30 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 31 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 32 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 33 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 34 of 34
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE AND FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 
U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | In connection with
  Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of First Transaction
  Management, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2007, as
  filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof
  (the Report), I, Susan Schreter, the Chief Executive Officer and 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 Annual Report on Form
  10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2007, 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 First Transaction Management, Inc for
  such period.

|                     |                                                               | 
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Dated: July 23, 2008 | /s/ Susan Schreter                                            | 
|                     |                                                               | 
|                     | Susan Schreter, Chief
  Executive and Chief Financial Officer

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1151** 

In R e: JOHN ANDREW SPEAGLE, SR. , Petitioner
.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
. ( 5:05

- cr - 00234

- RLV

- CH

- 2; 5:12

- cv - 00134

- RLV )

Submitted : August 25, 2015 Decided: August 28, 2015

Before GREGORY and SHEDD , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
. John Andrew Speagle, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John Andrew Speagle, Sr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion to recall the district court’s mandate and reconsider its order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012) motion **.** He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court disposed of Speagle’s pending motions on August 13, 2015. Accordingly, because the district co urt has recently decided Speagle ’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is cour t and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

BRICE BUILDING COMPANY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv31/RS-MD

SUANN LEE and GLENDA E. LEE,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER

Consideration of the award of attorney’s fees and costs to Defendant Suann Lee is

deferred until Defendant’s attorneys properly comply with the requirements of N.D. Fla.

Loc. R. 54.1(E)(1) which requires “...sufficient detail to identify the exact nature of the work

performed.” Defendant’s attorney shall comply with the requirements of N.D. Fla. Loc. R.

54.1(E)(1) not later than June 14, 2010.

ORDERED on June 7, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### WHITE v. PATE

No. 511PA82.

Case below: 58 N.C. App. 402.

Petition by plaintiffs for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 5 October 1982.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CURTIS LEON DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No: 1:10-cv-95-MP-GRJ

SADIE DARNELL, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion For Extending Time To Service

Of Summons (Doc. 25) and a document from Plaintiff requesting the issuance of

summonses and a copy of the Court’s rules relating to actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1983.

(Doc. 24.) Plaintiff, a prisoner presently incarcerated at Avon Park CI, initiated this case

by filing a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has been granted leave to

proceed as a pauper. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff is proceeding pursuant to a second amended

complaint, Doc. 23 (hereafter “Complaint”). 

1

The undersigned recently entered a Report and Recommendation

recommending dismissal of the Complaint. (Doc. 26.) If the Report and

Recommendation is adopted and the Complaint is dismissed, then service of the

Complaint will not be ordered and the issuance of summonses by the Clerk would be

unnecessary. Accordingly, both of Plaintiff’s motions are due to be DENIED. If

Plaintiff styled the pleading as his “First Amended” complaint, but it is in fact his 1

second amended complaint.

Case 1:10-cv-00095-MP-GRJ Document 29 Filed 10/31/11 Page 1 of 2
Plaintiff’s Complaint is deemed sufficient to proceed on, then the Court will order the

Clerk to issue the summonses and direct service on its own motion.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion For Extending Time To Service Of Summons (Doc. 25) is

DENIED.

(2) Plaintiff’s request for summonses and a copy of the Court’s rules relating to

actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 actions (Doc. 24) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 31 day of October 2011. 

st

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:10-cv-00095-MP-GRJ Document 29 Filed 10/31/11 Page 2 of 2
#### CORNATZER v. NICKS

No. 64 PC.

Case below: 14 N.C. App. 152.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 2 May 1972.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 213 (Monday, November 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 62488]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5470]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[UT050-1610-012J]


Correction to Notice of Availability of the Draft Resource 
Management Plan (DRMP) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 
for the Richfield Field Office in Garfield, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, and 
Wayne Counties, UT (Federal Register: October 26, 2007, Volume 72, 
Number 207, Page 60879-60881)

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The following corrections are made: Comments should be sent to 
the Richfield Field Office. Comments and information submitted on the 
Richfield Field Office DRMP/DEIS, including names, e-mail addresses, 
and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public 
review and disclosure at the Richfield Field Office address listed 
below. Or, you may contact Cornell Christensen, RMP Project Manager, 
Richfield BLM Field Office, 150 East 900 North, Richfield, Utah 84701, 
phone 435-896-1561.
    All other information within the Notice of Availability (10/26/07) 
remains unchanged.

    Dated: October 30, 2007.
Kent Hoffman,
Acting Utah State Director.
[FR Doc. 07-5470 Filed 11-02-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DK-M
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 22-24      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 22-24      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 22-24      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 3 of 3
#### Charles E. Reeve v. Mary E. Peppard.

1. Bills op Exception—Exhibits.—The court will not consider exhibits read in evidence unless they are properly preserved in a bill of exceptions.

Memorandum.—Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edmund W. Burke, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1894, and affirmed.

Opinion filed February 12, 1895.

A. P. Ingram and A. J. Bedard, attorneys for appellant.

*557P. T. Ki-jily, attorney for appellee.

Mr. Justice Gary

delivered the opihioh of the Court.

In 1890, the appellant made a contract to sell to one Barbara Bcese a lot. She sold her interest to the appellee, and a new contract was made between the appellant and the appellee, dated July 14, 1892, reciting that she had paid $195.09, on which contract she afterward paid $100 more.

The evidence is such that the jury doubtless believed that not only did the appellant not have any interest, nor any prospect of any interest in the lot described in the contract, but that he had no interest, nor prospect of interest, in any property in the vicinity. The evidence probably convinced the jury that the transaction on the part of the appellant was in the nature of what the statute alludes to as “ confidence game.”

She sued for money had and received, and recovered $295, and the appellant has appealed.

We are not at liberty to say whether the evidence justified the verdict, as the bill of exceptions shows that many documents were read in evidence which, in the bill of exceptions, are described as letters of certain dates from witnesses named, and some other papers, followed by the words “ as Exhibit B,” etc.; and then follows “ papers introduced and marked Exhibits B, C, D and E.” Later in the bill are mentioned Exhibits F and G.

Following the evidence, the instructions, and the denial of the motion for a new trial, are several pages, the first headed “ Plaintiff’s Exhibit A,” of which no mention is made in the body of the bill, and the others with the same heading, except the letters are B, O, D, E, F, G; but there is nowhere any statement identifying the papers copied on those pages as the ones referred to in the body of the bill. The case is like Page v. Northwestern Brewing Co., 54 Ill. App. 157.

The instructions were more favorable to the appellant than can be justified, as they quite leave out of consideration the element of good faith on his part. The judgment is affirmed.
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

I, Thornton J. Donaldson, the Chief Executive Officer of CanWest Petroleum
Corporation (f/k/a Uranium Power Corporation) (the "Company"), certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that
to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended
April 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
and

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


Dated: December 22, 2004


                                        By: /s/ Thornton J. Donaldson
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Name:  Thornton J. Donaldson
                                        Title: Chief Executive
                                               Officer
Exhibit 32.1 - President Certification (Section 906)

                        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                         AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
             SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I am the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Monster
Offers, a Nevada corporation (the "Company").  I am delivering this
certificate in connection with the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009 and filed with the U. S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("Form 10-Q").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Nate Kaup
------------------
    Nate Kaup
    President/CFO


Date  August 4, 2009
      --------------


<PAGE>
# CA2009119EN.01S00301.xml

| 28.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 119/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 119/s3

---

REVIEW OF ‘COMPETITION’ C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 9 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| --- | --- |
| 10 | (IT) |
| 12 | (DE/FR) |
| 13 | |
| 14 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 16 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 17 | (BG/ET/LT/LV/MT/RO) |
| 20 | |
| 21 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 23 | |
| 24 | (DE/FR/NL) |
| 25 | (BG/ET/LT/LV/MT/RO) |
| 28 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 34 | (FR) |
| 36 | (GA/EN) |
| 37 | |
| 38 | |
| 39 | (SV) |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | (EN) |
| 45 | |
| 46 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 47 | |
| 52 | (DA/FI/MT) |
| 58 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 59 | (DE/EN/ES/FR/PT/SV) |
| 62 | (BG/CS/LT/LV/MT/PL/RO/SK) |
| 63 | |
| 70 | |
| 71 | |
| 75 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 80 | (FR) |
| 84 | (BG/RO) |
| 86 | |
| 91 | |
| 93 | (BG/RO) |
| 94 | |
| 95 | |
| 97 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 98 | |
| 99 | (GA/EN) |
| 103 | |
| 104 | (CS/PL) |
| 105 | |
| 106 | |
| 107 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 109 | (ET) |
| 114 | |
| 115 | (PL) |
| 116 | |
| 117 | |
| 118 | (EL) |
| 119 | |

9

(DE/EN/FR)

10

(IT)

12

(DE/FR)

13

14

(DE/EN/FR)

16

(DE/EN/FR)

17

(BG/ET/LT/LV/MT/RO)

20

21

(DE/EN/FR)

23

24

(DE/FR/NL)

25

(BG/ET/LT/LV/MT/RO)

28

(DE/EN/FR)

34

(FR)

36

(GA/EN)

37

38

39

(SV)

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

(EN)

45

46

(DE/EN/FR)

47

52

(DA/FI/MT)

58

(DE/EN/FR)

59

(DE/EN/ES/FR/PT/SV)

62

(BG/CS/LT/LV/MT/PL/RO/SK)

63

70

71

75

(DE/EN/FR)

80

(FR)

84

(BG/RO)

86

91

93

(BG/RO)

94

95

97

(DE/EN/FR)

98

99

(GA/EN)

103

104

(CS/PL)

105

106

107

(DE/EN/FR)

109

(ET)

114

115

(PL)

116

117

118

(EL)

119

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          37,714
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,617,195
<ALLOWANCES>                                   411,000
<INVENTORY>                                  5,030,437
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,095,476
<PP&E>                                     103,206,738
<DEPRECIATION>                              59,517,014
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              77,486,748
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,557,692
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    14,183,493
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,501,031
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                77,486,748
<SALES>                                     86,600,205
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            86,600,205
<CGS>                                       68,071,391
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               68,071,391
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,965,231
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,205,648
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,357,935
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,574,818
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,783,117
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,783,117
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .78
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      18**






**LETTER
      REGARDING CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE**




October
      31, 2006




North
      American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc.


5314
      S.
      Yale Avenue, Suite 1000


Tulsa,
      Oklahoma




Dear
      Sirs/Madams:




At
      your
      request, we have read the description included in your Quarterly Report on
      Form
      10-Q to the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
      30, 2006, of the facts relating to the change in depreciation method for certain
      equipment from the units of production method to the straight-line method. 
We believe, on the basis of the facts so set forth and other information
      furnished to us by appropriate officials of the Company, that the accounting
      change described in your Form 10-Q is to an alternative accounting principle
      that is preferable under the circumstances.




We
      have
      not audited any consolidated financial statements of North American Galvanizing
      & Coatings, Inc. and its subsidiary as of any date or for any period
      subsequent to December 31, 2005.  Therefore, we are unable to express, and
      we do not express, an opinion on the facts set forth in the above-mentioned
      Form
      10-Q, on the related information furnished to us by officials of the Company,
      or
      on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of North
      American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc. and its subsidiary as of any date or
      for any period subsequent to December 31, 2005.




Yours
      truly,




*/s/
      DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP*