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

Case No. 5:09cv292-RH/CJK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DANA L. JENKINS,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 5:09cv292-RH/CJK

KENNETH S. TUCKER,

Respondent.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE PETITION AND

DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

This petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is before 

the court on the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, ECF No. 19, and 

the objections, ECF Nos. 20. I have reviewed de novo the issues raised by the 

objections. The report and recommendation is correct and is adopted as the court’s 

opinion.

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires a district court to 

“issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to 

the applicant.” 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 

Case 5:09-cv-00292-RH-CJK Document 21 Filed 05/21/12 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No. 5:09cv292-RH/CJK

constitutional right.” See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-38 (2003); 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (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.’ ” 

Slack, 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 petitioner has not made the required showing. 

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED.

Case 5:09-cv-00292-RH-CJK Document 21 Filed 05/21/12 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No. 5:09cv292-RH/CJK

2. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The petition is DENIED with 

prejudice.” 

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

4. The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on May 21, 2012.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 5:09-cv-00292-RH-CJK Document 21 Filed 05/21/12 Page 3 of 3
# C_2009282EN.01000101.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/1

---

2009/C 282/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 267, 7.11.2009

OJ C 267, 7.11.2009

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 256, 24.10.2009

OJ C 244, 10.10.2009

OJ C 233, 26.9.2009

OJ C 220, 12.9.2009

OJ C 205, 29.8.2009

OJ C 193, 15.8.2009

These texts are available on:

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

---
Case 4:10-cv-00038-RH-WCS   Document 81   Filed 10/15/10   Page 1 of 7

Case 4:10-cv-00038-RH-WCS   Document 81   Filed 10/15/10   Page 2 of 7

Case 4:10-cv-00038-RH-WCS   Document 81   Filed 10/15/10   Page 3 of 7

Case 4:10-cv-00038-RH-WCS   Document 81   Filed 10/15/10   Page 4 of 7

Case 4:10-cv-00038-RH-WCS   Document 81   Filed 10/15/10   Page 5 of 7

Case 4:10-cv-00038-RH-WCS   Document 81   Filed 10/15/10   Page 6 of 7

Case 4:10-cv-00038-RH-WCS   Document 81   Filed 10/15/10   Page 7 of 7
Form 20-F
EXHIBIT 13.1
July 30, 2012





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,


OF THE UNITED STATES CODE (18U.S.C.1350)


ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of CanAlaska Uranium Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended April 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter Dasler, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(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 the operations of the Company.




Date:           July 30, 2012





“Peter Dasler”


Chief Executive Officer
# C_2009105EN.01002401.xml

| 7.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 105/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 105/24

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 May 2009

2009/C 105/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3322 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,17 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4485 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88610 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,6160 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5089 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,7350 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,805 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 285,83 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7093 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4135 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1592 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0930 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7917 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5689 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3245 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,2857 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9651 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 702,95 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,3237 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,0877 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3744 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 885,52 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7073 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,515 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,7360 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,857 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,8549 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,6967 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 66,0640 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3322

JPY

Japanese yen

131,17

DKK

Danish krone

7,4485

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88610

SEK

Swedish krona

10,6160

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5089

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,7350

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,805

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

285,83

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7093

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4135

RON

Romanian leu

4,1592

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0930

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7917

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5689

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3245

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,2857

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9651

KRW

South Korean won

1 702,95

ZAR

South African rand

11,3237

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,0877

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3744

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 885,52

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7073

PHP

Philippine peso

63,515

RUB

Russian rouble

43,7360

THB

Thai baht

46,857

BRL

Brazilian real

2,8549

MXN

Mexican peso

17,6967

INR

Indian rupee

66,0640

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

RICKY RONNELL WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv290-RH/WCS

CHIEF HEALTH OFFICER DRATLER,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This prisoner civil-rights case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation, ECF No. 31, and the objections, ECF No. 32. I have

reviewed de novo the issues raised by the objections. The report and

recommendation correctly concludes that the plaintiff did not exhaust his

administrative remedies and that the case therefore must be dismissed. 

One other matter deserves mention. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal,

ECF No. 33, purporting to appeal the report and recommendation to the Eleventh

Circuit. The report and recommendation was not an appealable order. In due

course the Eleventh Circuit will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The

judgment that will be entered by the clerk of the court based on this order will be

Case 4:10-cv-00290-RH-WCS Document 34 Filed 07/21/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

an appealable order. If the plaintiff wishes to appeal, he must file a notice of

appeal from the judgment. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED. 

2. The defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies, ECF No. 26, is GRANTED. 

3. The plaintiff’s motions not to dismiss, ECF Nos. 28 and 29, are DENIED.

4. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The complaint is dismissed

without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) based on failure to exhaust

administrative remedies.” 

5. The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on July 19, 2011.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge

Case No: 4:10cv290-RH/WCS

Case 4:10-cv-00290-RH-WCS Document 34 Filed 07/21/11 Page 2 of 2
# C_2009049EN.01000701.xml

| 28.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/7

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5462 — Thomas Cook Group/Gold Medal International)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 49/05)

| 1. | On 23 February 2009 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Thomas Cook Group plc. (‘Thomas Cook’, UK) which is controlled by Arcandor AG (‘Arcandor’, Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation sole control of Gold Medal International Limited (‘Gold Medal’, UK) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 23 February 2009 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Thomas Cook Group plc. (‘Thomas Cook’, UK) which is controlled by Arcandor AG (‘Arcandor’, Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation sole control of Gold Medal International Limited (‘Gold Medal’, UK) by way of purchase of shares.

1

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for Thomas Cook: integrated leisure travel company, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Thomas Cook: integrated leisure travel company,

| — | for Gold Medal: independent tour operator. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Gold Medal: independent tour operator.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5462 — Thomas Cook Group/Gold Medal International, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Brussels |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5462 — Thomas Cook Group/Gold Medal International, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Brussels

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Case 1:07-cv-03360-GBD Document 4 Filed 05/22/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03360-GBD Document 4 Filed 05/22/2007 Page 2 of 2
|   | 1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange  Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                        |   |                                          |
|-----------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                        |   |                                          |   |
| Date:  August 14, 2009 |   | /s/ James Lay                            |   |
|                        |   | James Lay                                     |   |
|                        |   | Interim President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                        |   |                                          |   |
demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1);

NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3).

Appellant claimed that he had good cause to excuse the procedural bars because the documentation concerning his new claim was previously unavailable to him. Appellant's claim lacked merit. Appellant did not specify the document to which he referred, although it was presumably the sentencing memorandum from which he culled his argument. Appellant failed to demonstrate that an impediment external to the defense prevented him from previously obtaining his own sentencing memorandum. See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252-53, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying appellant's petition as procedurally barred, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3

Saitta Pickering

3 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEvADA 2

(0) 1947Acc: Hon. David A. Hardy, District Judge Orlando Scott Martin, Jr. Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 3

(0) 1947A
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-31127 Summary Calendar

BOBBIE CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. CA-93-1568-K - - - - - - - - - - September 18, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff Bobbie Clark appeals the dismissal of his claims for negligence and unseaworthiness. Having reviewed Clark’s arguments as well as the trial transcript and exhibits, we determine that the findings of the district court are not clearly erroneous. Clark v. United States , No. CA-93-1568-K (E.D. La. Oct. 11, 1995). AFFIRMED.
# C_2009150EN.01001101.xml

| 2.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 150/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 150/11

---

Call for proposals under the Implementation Plan of Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking

2009/C 150/12

Notice is hereby given of the launch of a call for proposals under the Annual Implementation Plan 2009 of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH JU).

Proposals are invited for the following call: FCH-JU-2009-1.

FCH-JU-2009-1

Call documentation including deadline and budget is given in the call text, which is published on the following website: http://cordis.europa.eu/

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

RICHARD AYCOX,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-51-SPM-GRJ

CITY OF GAINESVILLE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOTICE

This case is before the Court on Doc. 52, Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment, and Doc. 63, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Because Plaintiff is

proceeding pro se, he is advised of the following with respect to the motions. The Court

will decide each motion on the basis of the motion, the response, and any evidentiary

materials filed by the parties. The response and any supporting evidentiary materials

(counter-affidavits, depositions, exhibits, etc.) must be filed with the Clerk within 30

days from the date of this Order. The Court will take the motions under advisement

after the expiration of 30 days, and will thereafter issue a report recommending

disposition of the motions. 

If the Court grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, such decision

would be a final decision of the Court in favor of Defendant. As a result of such final

decision, there would be no trial or other proceedings in this case, and the Plaintiff

would likely be precluded from later litigating this matter or any related matters. 

Therefore, the Plaintiff is further advised: (1) failing to respond to the Defendant’s

summary judgment motion will indicate that the motion is not opposed; (2) all material
facts asserted in the motion will be considered admitted unless controverted by proper

evidentiary materials (counter-affidavits, depositions, exhibits, etc.); and (3) Plaintiff

may not rely solely on the allegations of the issue pleadings (e.g., complaint, answer,

etc.) in opposing the summary judgment motion. See Griffith v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d

822,825 (11th Cir. 1985).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The parties shall file their responses in opposition to the cross-motions for

summary judgment, Docs. 52 and 63, on or before December 6, 2012.

DONE AND ORDERED this 6 day of November 2012. 

th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 1:10-cv-00051-SPM-GRJ
FLN (Rev. 4/2004) Deficiency Order Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

RICARDO HECHEVARRIA

vs

BRUCE PEARSON

Case No. 3:09cv368-LAC/MD

ORDER

Petitioner’s § 2241 HABEAS CORPUS PETITION (received 10/20/2009) was referred

to the undersigned with the following deficiencies:

The document is not signed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) (requiring that all

pleadings be signed); N.D.Fla. Loc. R. 5.1(B)(5) (requiring that an original

signature be affixed to all documents filed in paper form).

The petition sets forth no claims or supporting facts; instead, it merely references

a memorandum. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.1(J)(3) (“A petition . . . filed on a form

must set forth specific claims and supporting facts [on the form itself] and may

not make reference to a memorandum.”). 

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that:

XX The submitted hard copy of the document shall be returned to you by the Clerk

without electronic filing. It may be resubmitted after the above noted deficiencies

are corrected.

XX Petitioner is provided a twenty-day extension, until November 10, 2009, in which

to comply with the court’s September 17, 2009 order (doc. 4).

DONE and ORDERED this 21 day of October, 2009. st

/s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
#### STATE v. RICKS

No. 121 PC.

Case below: 34 N.C. App. 734.

Petition by Attorney General for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 February 1978.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

VS CASE NO. 3:10cr30/MCR

ROBERT E. BOURLIER

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge M. Casey Rodgers on April 19, 2011

Motion/Pleadings: GOVERNMENT’S SECOND MOTION IN LIMINE 

Filed by Government on 3/31/11 Doc.# 180 

RESPONSES:

None on Doc.#

on Doc.#

 Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS

CLERK OF COURT

s/ Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 23rd day of 

April, 2011, that:

The relief requested is GRANTED.

M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Document No.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

TERRANCE ALLEN BARGNARE,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv44/MCR/EMT

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

by filing what appears to be a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (see Doc. 1). On April

12, 2010, this court entered an order giving Plaintiff thirty (30) days in which to pay an initial partial

filing fee in th amount of $18.14 (Doc. 9). Plaintiff failed to respond to the order; therefore, on June

1, 2010, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff 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. 11). The

time for compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed, and Plaintiff has not paid the initial

partial filing fee.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an

order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 29th day of June 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 2 of 2

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: 3:10cv44/MCR/EMT