alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

LESLIE JULIUS,

ALIEN # A037-589-497,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv285-SPM/WCS

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 

UNITED STATES, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus

under § 2241 on July 8, 2010. Doc. 1. Service was directed in July, doc. 8, and

Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss. Doc. 15. Respondents state that

Petitioner was released from custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

on September 20, 2010, because this native country of St. Kitts declined to issue travel

documents for Petitioner. Doc. 15. Thus, this § 2241 petition should now be dismissed

as moot because Petitioner has received the relief requested, release from detention.

The motion to dismiss, doc. 15, contains a certificate of service which indicates

the document was provided to Petitioner at his "last known address" which was the
Page 2 of 3

Wakulla County Jail and to his forwarding address. The Clerk of Court will be directed

to send this report and recommendation to both addresses as well. If Petitioner does

not contest this dismissal, he need not take any further action. Petitioner shall have a

fifteen day period of time in which to file any opposition to this report and

recommendation. 

ORDER

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Clerk shall provide a copy of this report and recommendation to Petitioner

at his address of record and at the forwarding address listed in the certificate of service

on the motion to dismiss, doc. 15. 

2. Petitioner shall have fifteen days to submit any opposition to this

recommendation to dismiss his § 2241 petition as moot.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In light of the assertion by Respondent that Petitioner has been released, it is

respectfully RECOMMENDED that the § 2241 petition filed by Petitioner LESLIE

JULIUS, Alien # A037-589-497, be DISMISSED as moot since he has been released

from detention.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on September 23, 2010.

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No. 4:10cv285-SPM/WCS
Page 3 of 3

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 10 days after

being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of

review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:10cv285-SPM/WCS
#### MARSHALL v. MILLER

No. 3 PC

No. 72 (Spring Term)

Case below: 47 NC App 530

Petition by Attorney General for reconsideration of denial of discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 (301 NC 401) allowed for limited purpose of consideration of question whether Court of Appeals erred in holding that proof of bad faith is required to establish a violation of G.S. 75-1.1, 6 January 1981.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

SEAN REILLY,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:10cv69-WS

PAUL M. VILLENEUVE,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 6)

docketed March 10, 2010. The magistrate judge recommends that the plaintiff's

complaint be dismissed. The plaintiff has filed objections (doc. 7) to the report and

recommendation.

The court having considered the record in light of the plaintiff's objections, it is

ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 6) is ADOPTED and

incorporated by reference into this order.

2. The plaintiff's complaint (doc. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction as to

any state law claim and for failure to state a claim under federal law.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:10cv69-WS

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of March , 2010.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2096 Referred in House (RFH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2096

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 23, 2019

             Referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize States and tribal 
     organizations that receive grants from the National Cemetery 
   Administration for establishment, expansion, or improvement of a 
veterans' cemeteries to use amounts of such grants for State and tribal 
organization cemetery personnel to train at the training center of the 
       National Cemetery Administration, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TRAINING OF STATE VETERANS CEMETERY PERSONNEL BY NATIONAL 
              CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION.

    Section 2408 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(1)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A)--
                            (i) by striking ``and (ii) the cost'' and 
                        inserting ``(ii) the cost''; and
                            (ii) by inserting ``; and (iii) training 
                        costs, including travel expenses, associated 
                        with attendance at training provided by the 
                        National Cemetery Administration'' before the 
                        semicolon; and
                    (B) in subparagraph (B)--
                            (i) by striking ``and (ii) the cost'' and 
                        inserting ``(ii) the cost''; and
                            (ii) by inserting ``; and (iii) training 
                        costs, including travel expenses, associated 
                        with attendance at training provided by the 
                        National Cemetery Administration'' before the 
                        period;
            (2) by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) as 
        subsections (d) through (g), respectively; and
            (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
        subsection (c):
    ``(c) A grant under this section for a purpose described in 
subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (a)(1) may be used, solely or in 
part, for training costs, including travel expenses, associated with 
attendance at training provided by the National Cemetery 
Administration.''.

            Passed the Senate December 19, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                JULIE E. ADAMS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
#### LEONARD v. JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORP.

No. 396P82.

Case below: 57 N.C. App. 553.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 25 August 1982.
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

TIMOTHY LEE LONG

# C03261

Plaintiff,

vs. 4:09-CV-297-SPM/AK

OFFICER B. CHERRY, et al.,

 Defendants.

 /

O R D E R

Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint, (doc. 1), and a 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), (doc. 3). Good cause having been shown, it

is ORDERED that:

1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 3) is GRANTED to the extent that

the case may proceed without the prepayment of the entire filing fee. 

2. The clerk of court shall assess Plaintiff $28.60 based on his monthly deposits

for the preceding six months and as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A). 
Page 2 of 3

3. Plaintiff shall have until OCTOBER 1, 2009 to submit the partial filing fee as

assessed by the clerk of court. A check from a penal institution, a cashier's check, or a

money order should be made payable to "Clerk, U.S. District Court" and sent to: United

States District Court, Northern District of Florida, Office of the Clerk, 111 North Adams

Street, Suite 322, Tallahassee, Florida 32301-7717. Personal checks will not be

accepted. The following information shall either be included on the face of the check

from the penal institution, cashier's check, or money order or attached thereto:

(1) the full name of the prisoner; (2) the prisoner's inmate number; and (3)

Northern District of Florida Case Number; see front page.

Checks or money orders which do not have this information will be returned to the penal

institution or to Plaintiff.

4. After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the prisoner shall be required to

make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income (that is, all

funds deposited in the account) credited to the prisoner's account. The agency having

custody of the prisoner shall forward payments from the prisoner's account on a monthly

basis to the clerk of court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. These

payments shall continue until the filing fee of $350.00 is paid in full. The prisoner

information described in Paragraph 3 shall either be included on the face of the check

from the penal institution, cashier's check, or money order or attached thereto.

 5. The clerk of court shall MAIL a copies of this order, with the appropriate cover

letter, to: Department of Corrections, Office of the General Counsel, 2601 Blair Stone

Road, Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500. 

4:09CV-297-SPM/AK
Page 3 of 3

6. No further action shall be taken with regard to Plaintiff's claims until the initial

partial filing fee is received.

7. Failure to submit the partial filing fee as instructed may result in a

recommendation of dismissal of this action and Plaintiff's inability to proceed in

forma pauperis in future actions.

8. The clerk shall refer this action to the undersigned on or before OCTOBER ,

2009.

DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of August, 2009.

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4:09CV-297-SPM/AK
Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATIONS I, Boyd V. Applegate, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Porfavor, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  August 17, 2009     By: /s/ Boyd V. Applegate Boyd V. Applegate CEO, President, Director
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

WILLIE JOSEPH WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv119-SPM/WCS

WALTER A. MCNEIL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. As Plaintiff has now paid the assessed

initial partial filing fee, doc. 5, the complaint has been reviewed as is required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915A. 

Plaintiff complains in this case that he is being wrongfully detained in prison. 

Doc. 1, p. 5. Plaintiff contends that he is Willie Joseph William and is not the person

Willie Joe Williams. Plaintiff claims his social security number and date of birth are

different than the other person identified. Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages as

relief.

Prisoners may not seek release from prison or reduce their period of confinement

through a civil rights action. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S. Ct. 1827,
Page 2 of 3

1841, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1973); Heck, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. at 2372. Even though

Plaintiff has not specifically requested release from prison, if Plaintiff's claim is correct

and he is wrongfully incarcerated instead of another person, he could be entitled to

release. An attack on one's incarceration or the length of that confinement is a habeas

corpus claim and may only be litigated through the filing of a habeas petition under 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372, 129 L.

Ed. 2d 383 (1994), a claim for damages that is related to a sentence or conviction that

has not yet been reversed or invalidated is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Heck, 114 S. Ct. at 2372. Therefore, Plaintiff's claim for money damages stemming

from an alleged wrongful incarceration is not cognizable under § 1983 until Plaintiff has

demonstrated that a court has ordered his release through a habeas proceeding. 

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's

complaint, doc. 1, be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and that the order adopting this report and

recommendation direct the Clerk of Court to note on the docket that this cause was

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on May 6, 2010.

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Case No. 4:10cv119-SPM/WCS
Page 3 of 3

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days

after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the

scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:10cv119-SPM/WCS
EXHIBIT 32.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 the accompanying Annual Report of Flickering Star
Financial, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Ginger B. Quealy, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, hereby certifies for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b)
or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that:

     1.   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Exchange Act; 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 5, 2005                   By: /s/ GINGER B. QUEALY
                                          _____________________________________
                                          Ginger B. Quealy
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          and Director



A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO FLICKERING STAR FINANCIAL, INC.,
AND WILL BE RETAINED BY FLICKERING STAR FINANCIAL, INC., AND FURNISHED TO THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
14

- 4624

People v. Actavis

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

ORDER

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 1

Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 2

Square , in the City of New York, on the 22 nd day of May, two thousand fifteen

. 3

4

Before: W ALKER

, R AGGI , and D RONEY

, Circuit Judges. 5

_________________________________________________ 6

7

P EOPLE OF THE S TATE OF N EW Y ORK

, by and through E RIC T. S CHNEIDERMAN

, 8

Attorney General of the State of New York, 9

Plaint iff

- Appellee

, 10

11

v. No. 14

- 4624 12

13

A CTAVIS PLC, F OREST L ABORATORIES

, LLC, 14

Defendants

- Appellants. 15

_________________________________________________ 16

17

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 18

AND DECRE ED that the order of the district court granting New York’s motion 19

for a preliminary injunction is AFFIRMED. An opinion has been filed under seal 20

concurrently with this order. The parties of record may obtain copies of the 21

sealed opinion from the Clerk’s Office. 22

23

The parties are hereby ORDERED to show cause why the opinion should 24

not be unsealed and to submit any proposed redactions

, by May 26, 2015 at 25

1:00 p m. The parties may file their submissions under seal. Absent any 26

submission from the parties, the opinion will be unsealed in full

. 27

28

FOR THE COURT: 29

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 30

31

11

2
# C_2011363EN.01003401.xml

| 13.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/34

---

Information notice pursuant to Article 10(3)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008

Countries benefiting from the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance from 1 January 2012

2011/C 363/06

Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 of 22 July 2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences from 1 January 2009 (1) (the Regulation), extended by Regulation (EU) No 512/2011 (2), establishes the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance (the GSP+). The Regulation envisages under Article 9(1)(a)(iii) the possibility to grant GSP+ as from 1 January 2012 to developing countries which submitted a request in this respect by 31 October 2011.

1

2

By 31 October 2011 the Commission received a request from the Republic of Cape Verde to benefit from the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance as from 1 January 2012. The Commission examined it in accordance with Article 10(1) of the Regulation and on 9 December 2011 adopted Commission Implementing Decision 2011/830 on the beneficiary countries which qualify for the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance from 1 January 2012, as provided in Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 (3), granting the GSP+ arrangement to the Republic of Cape Verde as from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2013 or until a date laid down by the successor regulation, whichever is earlier.

3

According to Article 9(3) of the Regulation, countries that were granted the GSP+ by Commission Decision 2008/938/EC of 9 December 2008 on the list of the beneficiary countries which qualify for the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 (4), as amended by Commission Decision 2009/454/EC (5) and Commission Decision 2010/318/EU of 9 June 2010 on the beneficiary countries which qualify for the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance for the period from 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2011 (6), were not required to re-submit a request for GSP+ under Article 9(1)(a)(iii) and continue to benefit from GSP+.

4

5

6

---

(1)  OJ L 211, 6.8.2008, p. 1.

1

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 512/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 of 22 July 2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011, (OJ L 145, 31.5.2011, p. 28).

2

(3)  OJ L 329, 13.12.2011, p. 19.

3

(4)  OJ L 334, 12.12.2008, p. 90.

4

(5)  OJ L 149, 12.6.2009, p. 78.

5

(6)  OJ L 142, 10.6.2010, p. 10.

6

---
#### HALL v. LASSITER

No. 126 PC.

Case below: 44 N.C. App. 23.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 February 1980.
Case 3:10-cv-00132-LC-MD   Document 1    Filed 04/29/10   Page 1 of 14

Case 3:10-cv-00132-LC-MD   Document 1    Filed 04/29/10   Page 2 of 14

Case 3:10-cv-00132-LC-MD   Document 1    Filed 04/29/10   Page 3 of 14

Case 3:10-cv-00132-LC-MD   Document 1    Filed 04/29/10   Page 4 of 14

Case 3:10-cv-00132-LC-MD   Document 1    Filed 04/29/10   Page 5 of 14

Case 3:10-cv-00132-LC-MD   Document 1    Filed 04/29/10   Page 6 of 14

Case 3:10-cv-00132-LC-MD   Document 1    Filed 04/29/10   Page 7 of 14

Case 3:10-cv-00132-LC-MD   Document 1    Filed 04/29/10   Page 8 of 14

Case 3:10-cv-00132-LC-MD   Document 1    Filed 04/29/10   Page 9 of 14

Case 3:10-cv-00132-LC-MD   Document 1    Filed 04/29/10   Page 10 of 14

Case 3:10-cv-00132-LC-MD   Document 1    Filed 04/29/10   Page 11 of 14

Case 3:10-cv-00132-LC-MD   Document 1    Filed 04/29/10   Page 12 of 14

Case 3:10-cv-00132-LC-MD   Document 1    Filed 04/29/10   Page 13 of 14

Case 3:10-cv-00132-LC-MD   Document 1    Filed 04/29/10   Page 14 of 14