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

PENSACOLA DIVISION

GARY MOYE,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv88/LAC/EMT

DAVID MORGAN,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Petitioner commenced this action

by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). Petitioner

subsequently filed an amended petition (Doc. 6). On April 2, 2010, this court entered an order

giving Petitioner thirty (30) days in which to provide two service copies of his amended petition

(Doc. 8). Petitioner failed to comply with an order of the court; therefore, on May 18, 2010, the

court issued an order requiring Petitioner to show cause, within twenty (20) days, why this action

should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court (Doc. 9). The time for

compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed, and Petitioner has not responded.1

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUTPREJUDICE for Petitioner’s failure to comply

with an order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 9 day of July 2010. th

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

 The clerk mailed the Order to Show Cause to two different addresses. Both times the 1

Order was returned as undeliverable (see Docs. 10, 12). 
Page 2 of 2

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. A copy of objections shall be

served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of

factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir.

1988).

Case No: 3:10cv88/LAC/EMT
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MELVIN J. VALENTIN VARGAS,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 3:10cv183/LAC/MD

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court on referral from the clerk. On June 2, 2010, plaintiff

filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of his civil rights

along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (docs. 1 & 2). Plaintiff’s complaint was

found to be deficient and he was ordered to file an amended complaint within twenty-eight

days (doc. 4). On June 8, 2010, plaintiff filed a letter advising the court that he was no

longer incarcerated and supplied his current address (doc. 6). However, mail that was

forwarded to this new address was returned as “undeliverable.” Therefore, a show cause

order was issued on August 4, 2010 (doc. 9) giving plaintiff twenty days to show cause why

this case should not be dismissed. To date, there has been no response from plaintiff

advising of his inability to comply with this court’s previous orders or attempting to pursue

litigation of this cause.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to keep the court

apprised of his current address and failure to prosecute this action.
Page 2 of 2

At Pensacola, Florida, this 10th day of September, 2010.

/s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within fourteen days

after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket

is for the court’s internal use only, and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon

the magistrate judge and all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review

of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir.

1988).

Case No: 3:10cv183/LAC/MD
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 Quarterly Report of Goldrich Mining Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ted R. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 81 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 results of operations of Goldrich Mining Company.







/s/ Ted R. Sharp

DATE:  November 22, 2010

Ted R. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Goldrich Mining Company and will be retained by Goldrich Mining Company to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.











---
Exhibit
99.2








CERTIFICATE
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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-QSB of Plata
Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the three months ended March 31, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Dexter
R. Calisco, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief:





1. The
Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15
(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2. The
information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.








May 5,
2008





DEXTER R.
CALISCO


Dexter R.
Calisco


Chief
Executive Officer,


President
and Director




















-1-
#### SIDES v. SIDES

No. 192 PC.

Case below: 44 N.C. App. 379.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 March 1980.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-12-00552- CV
Texas Com m ission on En vironm ental Quali ty and Las Brisas E nergy Ce nter, LLC, Appellants

v. Envi ronm ental Defense F und , Inc.; Texas Clean Air Cit ies Coalition; Sierra Club; and Clean E conom y Coalition, App ellees
F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 261 ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 1-0 0136 4, H ONO RAB LE STEP HEN Y ELENOSK Y , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellants ha

v e filed individual motions to dismiss the appea l. We g rant the motions and dismiss the appea l. SeeTex. R. App. P . 42.1(a)
.

__________________________________________ David Puryear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose and Goodwin Dismissed on Appellants’ Motions Filed: August 21, 2013
#### TRUCKING CO. v. PHILLIPS

No. 134 PC.

Case below: 51 N.C. App. 85.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 July 1981.
Exhibit 32

The following statement is being
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for purposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), which carries with it certain criminal penalties in the event of a knowing or willful misrepresentation.

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20549

Re: Lee Enterprises, Incorporated

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In accordance with the requirements of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that to our knowledge:



|(i) | this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 29, 2009 (Quarterly 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
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated for the
periods presented in the Quarterly Report.
|---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 8, 2009



|                        |  |                                        
|----------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|/s/ Mary E. Junck       |  | /s/ Carl G. Schmidt                    
|Mary E. Junck           |  | Carl G. Schmidt                        
|Chairman, President and |  | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
|Chief Executive Officer |  | and Treasurer                          

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Lee Enterprises, Incorporated
and will be retained by Lee Enterprises, Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
# EXHIBIT 10(a)

# SECOND AMENDMENT TO

# CREDIT AGREEMENT

THIS
SECOND AMENDMENT (Amendment) dated as of December 6, 2005, by and between
Knape & Vogt Manufacturing Company (Company) and Comerica Bank, a Michigan
banking corporation (Bank).

RECITALS:

A.       
          Company and Bank entered into a Credit Agreement dated as of August 8, 2003, as
          amended by one amendment (Agreement).

B.       
          Company and Bank desire to amend the Agreement as hereinafter set forth.

NOW,
THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

1.                 The
following definition in Section 1 of the Agreement is amended to read in its
          entirety as follows:

| | Revolving
Credit Maturity Date shall mean November 1, 2009.
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------

2.        Company
hereby represents and warrants that, after giving effect to the           amendment
contained herein, (a) execution, delivery and performance of this           Amendment and
any other documents and instruments required under this Amendment           or the
Agreement are within Companys corporate powers, have been duly
          authorized, are not in contravention of law or the terms of Companys
          Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws, and do not require the consent or approval
          of any governmental body, agency, or authority; and this Amendment and any
other           documents and instruments required under this Amendment or the Agreement,
will           be valid and binding in accordance with their terms; (b) the continuing
          representations and warranties of Company set forth in Sections 6.1 through
6.11           of the Agreement are true and correct on and as of the date hereof with
the same           force and effect as made on and as of the date hereof; and (c) no
Event of           Default (as defined in the Agreement) or condition or event which,
with the           giving of notice or the running of time, or both, would constitute an
Event of           Default under the Agreement, as hereby amended, has occurred and is
continuing           as of the date hereof.

3.        Except
as expressly provided herein, allof the terms and conditions of           the
Agreement remain unchanged and in fullforce and effect.

4.        This
Amendment shall be effective upon execution of this Agreement by Company           and
the Bank.

---



IN
WITNESS, the due execution hereof as of the day and year first above written.

|COMERICA BANKBy: /s/ Bryce E. Tallant      
      BRYCE E. TALLANTIts:       
      Vice President |  | KNAPE AND VOGT MANUFACTURING COMPANYBy: /s/ Leslie J. Cummings      
      LESLIE J. CUMMINGSIts:       
      Vice President of Finance
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         727,681
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  147,126
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,364
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               881,939
<PP&E>                                         338,635
<DEPRECIATION>                                 112,073
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,222,327
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          203,565
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,027,037
<OTHER-SE>                                   (150,986)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,222,327
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               481,444
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  510,284
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,310
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,162
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (22,752)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,996
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (26,705)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,705)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)



</TABLE>
# C_2011301EN.01000301.xml

| 12.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/3

---

Notice for the attention of the persons to which measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision 2011/670/CFSP, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1002/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran apply

2011/C 301/04

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision 2011/670/CFSP (1), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1002/2011 (2) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran.

1

2

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons that appear in the abovementioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/235/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 359/2011.

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 II to Regulation (EU) No 359/2011, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 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 abovementioned 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 267, 12.10.2011, p. 13.

1

(2)  OJ L 267, 12.10.2011, p. 1.

2

---
April 9, 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MARIA SUAREZ , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00184

- CV V.

DOW CORNING CORPORAT ION, CHILI ROBINSON MD, J AMES R. CULLINGTON MD, FRANC IS BURTON MD, SIMON FREDERICKS MD, TOLBERT WI LKINSON MD, 21 INTER NATIONAL HOLDINGS FK A KNOLL INTERNATIONAL, MILTO N ROWLEY MD, WESLEY WASHBURN MD, PRESTON J. CHANDLER MD, WILSHIRE FOAM PR ODUCTS INC., ERNEST CRONIN MD, JAMES PETERSON M D, THOMAS D. CRONIN MD, FRANK J. GEROW MD, GENERAL EL ECTRIC COMPANY, AND DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY , Appellee s

________________________________ Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on January 29, 2013. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Maria Suarez. We further order that mandate be issued immediately. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Page 1 of 3

Cases No. 1:10cr20-RH/GRJ and 1:16cv203/RH/GRJ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASES NO. 1:10cr20-RH/GRJ

 1:16cv203-RH/GRJ

RODNEY TERRELL JACKSON,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE § 2255 MOTION AND

DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The defendant has moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for relief from his 

judgment of conviction. The motion is before the court on the magistrate judge’s 

report and recommendation, ECF No. 58. No objections have been filed. This 

order accepts the report and recommendation, adopts it as the court’s opinion, and 

denies the § 2255 motion.

A defendant may appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion only if the district 

court or court of appeals issues a certificate of appealability. Under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has 

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 
Page 2 of 3

Cases No. 1:10cr20-RH/GRJ and 1:16cv203/RH/GRJ

(2000); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983); see also Williams v. 

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13 (2000) (setting out the standards applicable to a 

§ 2254 petition on the merits). As the Court said in Slack:

To obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a 

demonstration that, under Barefoot, includes showing that 

reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree 

that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner 

or that the issues presented were “adequate to deserve 

encouragement to proceed further.”

529 U.S. at 483-84 (quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n.4). Further, in order to 

obtain a certificate of appealability when dismissal is based on procedural grounds, 

a petitioner must show, “at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable 

whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and 

that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct 

in its procedural ruling.” Id. at 484.

The defendant has not made the required showing. This order thus denies a 

certificate of appealability.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The defendant’s motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, ECF No. 51, is 

denied.

2. The clerk must enter judgment.
Page 3 of 3

Cases No. 1:10cr20-RH/GRJ and 1:16cv203/RH/GRJ

3. A certificate of appealability is denied.

SO ORDERED on April 28, 2018.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge
# C_2011216EN.01001701.xml

| 22.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/17

---

Commission communication on the body authorised to issue certificates of authenticity under Regulation (EC) No 620/2009

2011/C 216/05

Council Regulation (EC) No 617/2009 of 13 July 2009, published in
  Official Journal of the European Union L 182 of 15 July 2009, opened an import tariff quota for high-quality beef.

Official Journal of the European Union

Under Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009, the release into free circulation of the products imported under that quota is conditional upon presentation of a certificate of authenticity.

The following authority is authorised to issue certificates of authenticity under the Regulation.

| Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry |
| --- |
| Pastoral House |
| 25 The Terrace |
| Wellington |
| NEW ZEALAND |

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

Pastoral House

25 The Terrace

Wellington

NEW ZEALAND

Postal address

| Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry |
| --- |
| PO Box 2526 |
| Wellington 6140 |
| NEW ZEALAND |
| Tel. +64 48940100 |
| Fax +64 48940720 |
| E-mail: nzfsa.info@maf.govt.nz |
| Internet: http://www.maf.govt.nz |

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

PO Box 2526

Wellington 6140

NEW ZEALAND

Tel. +64 48940100

Fax +64 48940720

E-mail: nzfsa.info@maf.govt.nz

Internet: http://www.maf.govt.nz

---
# C_2009102EN.01000101.xml

| 1.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/1

---

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 102/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 90, 18.4.2009

OJ C 90, 18.4.2009

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 82, 4.4.2009

OJ C 69, 21.3.2009

OJ C 55, 7.3.2009

OJ C 44, 21.2.2009

OJ C 32, 7.2.2009

OJ C 19, 24.1.2009

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---