alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

AARON EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00048-MP-AK

ALACHUA COUNTY JAIL,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to file an

amended complaint (doc. 9) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. 

(Doc. 10). 

Plaintiff’s motion to extend time (doc. 9) is GRANTED, and he shall have through

September 3, 2010, to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed as a pauper (Doc. 10), is GRANTED to the extent that the

case may proceed without the prepayment of the entire filing fee. Because Plaintiff has

insufficient funds, the Court will not require Plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee as

provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A). However, Plaintiff is hereby assessed the total $350.00

filing fee in this case.

As funds become available in Plaintiff's prison account, he shall be required to make

monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month's income (that is, all funds

deposited into the account) credited to the account. Upon receipt of this Order, the agency

having custody of Plaintiff shall forward payments from Plaintiff's account on a monthly basis to
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:10-cv-00048-MP-AK

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 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 (1:10cv048-MP/AK). Checks or money orders which

do not have this information will be subject to return. Accordingly, the Clerk shall mail a copy

of this Order by mail to: Department of Corrections, Office of the General Counsel, 2601 Blair

Stone Road, Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500.

Plaintiff is warned that he is ultimately responsible for payment of the filing fee if the

agency with custody over him/her lapses in its duty to make payments on his/her behalf. For this

reason, if Plaintiff is transferred to another jail or institution, Plaintiff should ensure that the new

institution is informed about this lawsuit and the required monthly payments as set out herein. 

Plaintiff is advised to retain a copy of this Order for this purpose.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. That Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time (doc. 9) is GRANTED, and he shall have

through September 3, 2010, to file an amended complaint.

2. That Plaintiff’s motion for IFP (doc. 10) is GRANTED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of August, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

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

No. 81 PC.

Case below: 27 N.C. App. 68.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 5 November 1975.
#### HOYLE v. ISENHOUR BRICK & TILE CO.

No. 82A82.

Case below: 306 N.C. 248.

Petition by defendants denied 25 August 1982.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LIBERTY CORPORATION FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         1,478,573
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      79,562
<MORTGAGE>                                     227,469
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  140,368
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               2,047,508
<CASH>                                          35,979
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             254,505
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         333,801
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,009,428
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              1,839,566
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                   3,812
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           29,179
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                263,421
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           45,656
<PREFERRED>                                     20,999
<COMMON>                                       162,553
<OTHER-SE>                                     369,505
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,009,428
<PREMIUMS>                                     238,221
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            114,360
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              (1,183)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  99,029
<BENEFITS>                                     163,338
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     61,104
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           101,460
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,894
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,359
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,535
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,535
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .80
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE v. WILLIAMS

No. 203 PC.

Case below: 41 N.C. App. 287.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 30 July 1979.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HONG HWA GIL, a.k.a. Hong Hua Ji,

a.k.a. Hee Jung Lee,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71901

Agency No. A079-800-947

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 9, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Hwa Gil, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

FILED

MAR 29 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-71901

denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.

2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gil’s motion to reopen as

untimely because the motion was filed over 90 days after the BIA’s final

administrative decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and because Gil failed to

demonstrate changed country conditions material to her claim in order to qualify

for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Almaraz v. Holder, 608 F.3d 638, 640-41 (9th Cir.

2010) (denying petition for review where evidence of changed country conditions

was not material to petitioner).

To the extent Gil contends the BIA failed to consider all of the evidence she

submitted with the motion to reopen, she has not overcome the presumption that

the BIA did review the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th

Cir. 2006). 

Gil submitted additional evidence with her opening brief to this Court,

which cannot be considered on review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (the court of

appeals shall decide the petition only on the administrative record on which the

order of removal is based).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Everett L. Crawford et al., as Trustees under the Will of Henry Dexter, Deceased, Respondents, *v.*Clarissa T. Dexter et al., Defendants, and Midnight Mission et al., Appellants.

*Crawford*v. *Dexter,*178 App. Div. 764, affirmed.

(Argued June 7, 1918;

decided July 12, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 23, 1917, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment entered upon the report of a referee in an action to settle the accounts of trustees under the will of Henry Dexter, deceased, and to obtain a construction of said will. Testator directed his trustees to *587apply the *“*rest, residue and remainder of my property and estate or so much thereof as may be necessary in their best judgment and discretion, but not less than $5,000 per annum, to the care, support, maintenance, benefit and use of my daughter Clarissa Treadwell Dexter, for and during her natural life.” The question on appeal had to do with the disposition to be made of the accumulated income of the estate, which on April 27, 1915, amounted to $209,845.96. Did the testator’s insane daughter, Clarissa Treadwell Dexter, have a vested interest in this accumulated income, or was her interest in the income limited to only so much as the executors and trustees should apply for her benefit, in no event less than $5,000 per year? The Appellate Division held that the daughter is entitled to the entire net income and that any surplus not expended for her maintenance should be held by the trustees for her benefit.

*Grenville T. Emmet*and *Allen S. Locke*for Midnight Mission et al., appellants.

*Bronson Winthrop*and *George Roberts*for S. Clinton Sherwood, appellant.

*Herbert S. Schoonmaker*and *William H. Sage*for Young Men’s Christian Association, appellant.

*William H. Harris*and *Edwin S. Lewis*for American Bible Society et al., appellants.

*Edwin C. Mulligan*for Salvation Army, appellant.

*Francis Smyth*for New York Association for Improving Condition of Poor, appellant.

*William C. Beecher*for New York Society for Suppression of Vice, appellant.

*Walter E. Hope*for plaintiffs, respondents.

*William Mason Smith*for Mary G. Dexter et al., respondents.

*Wallace MacFarlane*and *Robert Grier Monroe*for Clarissa T. Dexter, respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, Cardozo and McLaughlin, JJ. Not voting: Hiscock, Ch. J.
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 207 (Friday, October 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 60868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5311]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, Tularemia Immunology.
    Date: November 14, 2007.
    Time: 11 a.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817. (Telephone Conference Call)
    Contact Person: Brenda Lange-Gustafson, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, NIAID, DEA, Scientific Review Program, Room 3122, 
6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC-7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-451-
3684, [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS).

    Dated: October 22, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-5311 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```
#### APARTMENTS, INC. v. WILLIAMS

No. 129 PC.

Case below: 43 N.C. App. 648.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 February 1980.
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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Monster Offers (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").
I, Nate Kaup, President/CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

               (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.

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


Date  May 14, 2008
      ------------


<PAGE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 054 3 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JUSTIN GUY ZENO SHAWN WOLF MASON,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including January 30 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 23 2022

12/23/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0543
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1945 

To amend section 36 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776) 

to preserve congressional review and oversight of foreign arms sales, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 24, 2019 

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. PAUL, and Mr. 

LEAHY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To amend section 36 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 

U.S.C. 2776) to preserve congressional review and oversight of foreign arms sales, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLES. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Saudi Arabia False 

5 Emergencies Act’’ or the ‘‘SAFE Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1945 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW AND 

2 OVERSIGHT OF ARMS SALES TO SAUDI ARA3 BIA AND OTHER COUNTRIES. 

4 Section 36 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 

5 U.S.C. 2776) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(j) DETERMINATION OF AN EMERGENCY.—Notwith8 standing any other provision of this Act related to a deter9 mination of an emergency to waive congressional review 

10 of proposed letters of offer, licenses, or approvals— 

11 ‘‘(1) a determination pursuant to subsection 

12 (b)(1), (c)(2), (d)(2), section 3(d)(2), or any other 

13 provision of this Act that an emergency exists shall 

14 apply only to the North Atlantic Treaty Organiza15 tion, any member country of the North Atlantic 

16 Treaty Organization, Australia, Japan, the Republic 

17 of Korea, Israel, and New Zealand; 

18 ‘‘(2) the President— 

19 ‘‘(A) shall submit a determination and de20 tailed justification for each letter of offer, li21 cense, or approval subject to an emergency de22 termination; and 

23 ‘‘(B) shall include a specific and detailed 

24 description of how such waiver of the congres25 sional review requirements directly responds to 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 1945 IS

1 or addresses the circumstances of the emer2 gency cited in the determination; and 

3 ‘‘(3) the determination described in paragraph 

4 (2)(A) shall only be available for a certification for 

5 a letter of offer, license, or approval for defense arti6 cles or defense services— 

7 ‘‘(A) that directly respond to or counter a 

8 physical security threat; and 

9 ‘‘(B) 75 percent of which will be delivered 

10 not later than 2 months after the date of such 

11 determination.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### STATE v. PISCIOTTA

No. 470P82.

Case below: 57 N.C. App. 710.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 21 September 1982.
#### MIDREX CORP. v. LYNCH, SEC. OF REVENUE

No. 113 PC.

Case below: 50 N.C. App. 611.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 June 1981. Motion of defendant to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 2 June 1981.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7254

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL DOUGLAS VOS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:02-cr-00752-RBH-1; 4:19-cv-00203-CWH)

Submitted: December 19, 2019 Decided: December 23, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Douglas Vos, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Douglas Vos seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate 

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, 

a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that 

the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Vos has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 15.2  Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-184351) pertaining to the Executive Share Option Plan, Long-Term Umbrella Incentive Plan, Non-Executive Directors Equity Incentive Plan, Executive Officer IPO Stock Option Grants and Non-Executive Director IPO Stock Option Grants of Luxfer Holdings PLC (the Company) and in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-196166)  pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan and Share Incentive Plan of the Company of our report dated March 19, 2015, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of the Company for each of the two years ended December 31, 2014 included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2015.  /s/   Ernst & Young LLPManchester,   EnglandMarch 15,   2016
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 58942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5117]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision

[AC-16: OTS Nos. 05763 and H-4444]


First Advantage Bancorp, Inc., Clarksville, Tennessee; Approval 
of Conversion Application

    Notice is hereby given that on October 10, 2007, the Office of 
Thrift Supervision approved the application of First Federal Savings 
Bank, Clarksville, Tennessee, to convert to the stock form of 
organization. Copies of the application are available for inspection by 
appointment (phone number: 202-906-5922 or e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e9b99c8b85808ac7a0878f86a9a6bdbac7bd9b8c889ac78e869f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e4b49186888d87caad8a828ba4abb0b7cab096818597ca838b92">[email protected]</span></a>) at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20552, and the OTS Southeast Regional Office, 1475 
Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309.

    Dated: October 11, 2007.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Sandra E. Evans,
Legal Information Assistant.
[FR Doc. 07-5117 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2011295EN.01001301.xml

| 7.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/13

---

Corrigendum to notices concerning the European Economic Area

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 285 of 29 September 2011
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 285 of 29 September 2011

2011/C 295/09

On page 13, and on the cover page, under ‘NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA’:

for:

‘European Commission’,

read:

‘EFTA Surveillance Authority’.

---
Case 7:07-cv-03460-CLB Document 5 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 7:07-cv-03460-CLB Document 5 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 2 of 2