alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CYNTHIA LUCILLE HAYNES v. JOHN PALMER HORTON, JR., WILLIAM DONALD HORTON, and MRS. J. P. HORTON, SR.

(Filed 8 April, 1964.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *McLaughlin, J.,*Regular January, 1964, Session of Wilees.

*Moore & Rousseau for plaintiff.*

*McElwee •& Hall for defendants.*

Per Curiam.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered by plaintiff as a result of a fall in defendant’s drugstore about 9:30 A.M. on 20 February 1962. It is alleged that plaintiff slipped and fell while walking to a table to be served with a *616soft drink, there was a wet and slippery substance on the floor where she fell, the substance was placed there by an employee of defendants who was engaged in mopping the floor, the substance created a hazardous condition, it was invisible to plaintiff, and defendants failed to warn of the condition.

At the close of plaintiff’s evidence the court allowed defendants’ motion for nonsuit. In this we find no error. Plaintiff’s evidence does not support her pleadings and is insufficient to make out a *prima facie*case of actionable negligence. The mere fact that one slips and falls on a floor does not constitute evidence of negligence. The doctrine of *res ipsa loquitur*does not apply. *Bowen v. Anchor Enterprises, Inc.,*255 N.C. 359, 121 S.E. 2d 546; *Murrell v. Handley,*245 N.C. 559, 96 S.E. 2d 717; *Barnes v. Hotel Corp.,*229 N.C. 730, 51 S.E. 2d 180.

Affirmed.
# C_2009059EN.01001401.xml

| 13.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 59/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/14

---

Corrigendum to call for proposals — EACEA/33/08 — EU-Canada programme for cooperation in higher education, training and youth — Call for proposals 2009 — Transatlantic Exchange Partnerships

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 7 of 13 January 2009
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 7 of 13 January 2009

(2009/C 59/11)

On page 12, paragraph 6, the date for the deadline of applications has been modified as follows:

for:

‘... 1 April 2009.’,

read:

‘... 8 May 2009.’

---
# 387-/3 ELECTRONIC RECORD CCA # 14-12-00466-CR
William Tyrone Washington v. The State of 

### STYLE: Texas

TRIAL COURT: TRIAL COURT#: 262nd District Court 1345408 

### TRIAL COURTJUDGE: Judge, 262nd DistrictCourt 

### OFFENSE Aggravated Sexual Assault

COUNTY Harris

FOR REHEARING IS: DATE:

_ MOTION

DISPOSITION: 

# jmttffflSrrfMtifi&l judge:. DATE: 

### JUSTICE:. PUBLISH:
CLK RECORD: RPT RECORD: 

### STATE BR; _ APP BR: =

# ImL mm 'ih. PC

# i-rC DNP: SUPP CLK RECORD SUPP RPT RECORD SUPP BR PRO SE BR 

# fji<? IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS 

# 3*7-/3 ELECTRONIC RECORD 

# S"hArte,S Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# DATE: '>&,;//" /£• 2CW £* : JUDGE
CCA IS: JUDGE: 

### . MOTION FOR REHEARING IN ON 

### CCA# Disposition: 

### DATE: JUDGE: 

### SIGNED:

_ PUBLISH: PC: DNP: 

### MOTION FOR STAYOF MANDATE IS: 

### . ON JUDGE: , .. .. ..
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15D0371. ROBERT LEE RHODES v. THE STATE.

Robert Lee Rhodes pled guilty to trafficking in cocaine in 2012. Rhodes filed

a motion to set aside the judgment in which he requested that his plea be set aside,1

which the trial court denied. On April 15, 2015, Robert Lee Rhodes filed an

application for discretionary appeal from the trial court’s order. Rhodes included a

copy of the court’s order, but the order was not a stamped “filed” copy as required by

Court of Appeals Rule 31 (e).

 Without the stamped “filed” copy of the order, we cannot ascertain if the

application was filed within 30 days, which is a jurisdictional requirement.

2 See

OCGA § 5-6-35 (d); Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). 

Accordingly, Rhodes’s application is hereby DISMISSED.

Even if the application had been timely, however, it would have been subject

to dismissal. In Roberts v. State, the Supreme Court made clear that a motion seeking

to challenge an allegedly invalid or void judgment of conviction “is not one of the

established proceduresfor challenging the validity of a judgment in a criminal case.” 

1 We cannot determine the date that Rhodes filed his motion from the

application materials. An applicant to this Court bears the burden of demonstrating

that his application should be granted. See Harper v. Harper, 259 Ga. 246 (378 SE2d

673) (1989). An applicant must “include a copy of any petition or motion which led

directly to the order or judgment being appealed . . . .” OCGA § 5-6-35 (c); Court of

Appeals Rule 31 (b).

2 Although the order did not contain a stamped “filed” date, the order was

signed by the judge on March 11, 2015. Rhodes’s application wasfiled 35 dayslater. 

May 14, 2015
Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010). Thus, Rhodesis not authorized

to collaterally attack his conviction in this manner. See id.; Matherlee v. State, 303

Ga. App. 765 (694 SE2d 665) (2010). 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

05/14/2015
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of WindTamer Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Molly Hedges, as Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.





Date: May 12, 2011/s/ Molly HedgesMolly HedgesActing Chief Financial Officer





This Certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

SHARON S. RHODES,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 4:10cv254-SPM/WCS

GULF COAST FACILITIES, LLC,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to the Mediator Report (doc. 30), advising that this case has

settled, and Northern District of Florida Local Rule 16.2(D), it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. This case is dismissed with prejudice.

2. The Court retains jurisdiction for a period of 60 days, during which 

time any party may move to reopen for good cause shown.

DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00254-SPM-WCS Document 31 Filed 05/02/11 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-02262-WHP Document 4 Filed 04/05/2007 Page 1 of 1
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 13

- 00213

- CV

Mark A. CANTU

, Appellant

v.

GUERRA & MOORE

, LLP , Carlos Guerra, J. Michael Moore, and David Lumber,

Appellees

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CVQ0001154

- D2

Honorable Monica Z. Notzon, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

REVERSED and this cause is REMAN DED to the trial court. Costs of this appeal are taxed

against Appellees Guerra & Moore LLP, Carlos Guerra, J. Michael Moore, and David Lumber.

SIGNED June 25, 2014.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Exhibit
99.4








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-Q of Plata
Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the three months ended March 31, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
Presentacion A. Coranes, Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer 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.







PRESENTACION A. CORANES  Presentacion
A. Coranes


Chief
Accounting Officer


Chief
Financial Officer and Director








1
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 Enox Biopharma, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Itamar David,
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, 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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: August 7,  2009                   By: /s/ Itamar David
                                           -------------------------------------
                                        Name:  Itamar David
                                        Title: Principal Financial Officer
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

WILLIAM T SPENCER,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00267-MP-WCS

LEONARD HOLTON,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 5, Report and Recommendation by Magistrate

Judge Sherrill, and on Doc. 6, Motion to Dismiss by Mr. Spencer. The Magistrate Judge has

recommended this cause be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. No party has

objected to that recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed. Additionally, Mr.

Spencer has filed a motion requesting this case be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, it

is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Doc. 5, is ADOPTED

and incorporated herein. 

2. Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 6, is GRANTED.

3. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of September, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-50162

Summary Calendar

_____________________

RAMSEY BLAKE HARRELL,

Petitioner-Appellee,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(MO-96-CV-131)

_________________________________________________________________

November 21, 1997

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Institutional Division, appeals the district court’s denial of his

FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment,

contending that the court abused its discretion by dismissing

Ramsey Blake Harrell’s habeas petition without, rather than with,

prejudice. Harrell did not file a brief in opposition.
- 2 -

The summary judgment constituted a judgment on the merits.

See Powell v. United States, 849 F.2d 1576, 1579 (5th Cir. 1988);

10A CHARLES A. WRIGHT, ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2719, at 7

(1983). Accordingly, the judgment should have provided for

dismissal with prejudice. We therefore MODIFY the judgment to

reflect the dismissal as being with prejudice and AFFIRM the

judgment as modified.

 AFFIRMED as MODIFIED
#### STATE v. WILHITE & RANKIN

No. 171P82.

Case below: 56 N.C. App. 467.

Petition by defendant Whilhite for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 May 1982. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 4 May 1982.
#### STATE v. HARRIS

No. 202 PC.

Case below: 52 N.C. App. 165.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 July 1981.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1] 

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Ames Department Stores, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period ended May 4, 2002. 

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Bradlees, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period ended October 28, 2000. 

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Caldor Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 1998. 

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Stuarts Department Stores, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period ended October 28, 1995. 

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed companies. 

Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on November 7, 2007, through 11:59 p.m. EST on November 20, 2007. 

By the Commission. 

Nancy M. Morris, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 07-5625 Filed 11-7-07; 11:20 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of SulphCo, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K/A - Amendment No. 1 for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stanley W. Farmer, President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Corporate Secretary of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Registrant.
 
 Date: April 28, 2011
 /s/ Stanley W. FarmerStanley W. FarmerPresident, Chief Financial Officer,Treasurer and Corporate Secretary
 A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to SulphCo, Inc. and will be retained by SulphCo, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
# C_2009054EN.01000601.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 March 2009

(2009/C 54/03)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2658 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 122,53 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4505 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89000 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,7135 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4637 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,9530 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,038 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 316,50 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7076 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,7311 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2915 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,2650 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,9783 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6258 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,8175 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,5134 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9562 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 958,55 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,3247 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,6581 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4224 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 303,52 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7056 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,230 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 45,2865 |
| THB | Thai baht | 45,675 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0244 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,3799 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 65,4360 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2658

JPY

Japanese yen

122,53

DKK

Danish krone

7,4505

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89000

SEK

Swedish krona

11,7135

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4637

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,9530

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

28,038

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

316,50

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7076

PLN

Polish zloty

4,7311

RON

Romanian leu

4,2915

TRY

Turkish lira

2,2650

AUD

Australian dollar

1,9783

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6258

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,8175

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,5134

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9562

KRW

South Korean won

1 958,55

ZAR

South African rand

13,3247

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,6581

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4224

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 303,52

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7056

PHP

Philippine peso

61,230

RUB

Russian rouble

45,2865

THB

Thai baht

45,675

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0244

MXN

Mexican peso

19,3799

INR

Indian rupee

65,4360

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
FLN (Rev. 4/2004) Deficiency Order Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al

vs

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al

Case No. 3:10cv91/RV/EMT

ORDER

TO: Paul Andrew Mitchell

Your document, NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPLY FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

(received 3/31/10), was referred to the undersigned with the following deficiencies:

(a) The document does not have an original signature or proper

electronic signature.

(b) The first page of the document does not have a bottom

margin of at least two inches as required by N.D. Fla. Loc. R.

5.1(B)(3).

(c) Any intervention in this case must be on grounds, and in accordance with

the procedures, set out in Rule 24, Federal Rules of Civil Procdure.

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) The document shall remain in the electronic file, but the court will not

consider it until you have corrected the above deficiencies through the

filing of a corrected document. The document is DENIED without

prejudice, with leave given to refile after correction.

(2) 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.

DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of April, 2010.

 /s Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT Document 8 Filed 04/05/10 Page 1 of 1
#### R. B. Bullock, Governor, plaintiff in error, *vs.*E. E. Chisolm *et al.,*defendants in error.

1. The Clerk having certified a record of a case different from the case mentioned in the bill of exceptions, the writ of error was dismissed. (R.)

2. Alter the case was dismissed for want of proper certificate by the Clerk, a proper certificate was procured and a motion made to reinstate the case. The motion was overruled. (R.)

Practice in Supreme Court. From Fulton county.

The bill of exceptions recited that “the case of E. E. Chisolm and W. H. Clark *vs.*R. B. Bullock, Governor, being a *certiorari*from the District Court,” was heard, and the *certiorari*was sustained on the 19th of June, 1871, at Chambers, and that is assigned as error. The Clerk certified that it was “the true original bill of exceptions in the case of the State *vs.*John Copraud, decided on the 19th of June, 1871, at Chambers.” With this bill of exceptions, so certified, the Clerk sent a certified record. In it appeared that said Clark and Chisolm complained of certain alleged errors of the district Judge “in a proceeding by *scire facias*against them, a copy of which is as follows.” That copy begins: “Whereas, John Copraud, principal, and E. E. Chisolm and W. H. Clark, sureties,” gave bond, etc., etc. The Clerk certifies this as the copy record in the case of The State *vs.*John Copraud.

When the cause was called here upon motion of defendant’s counsel it was dismissed, because the Clerk had not *342certified and sent up the record in the case of Chisolm and Clark *vs.*R. B. Bullock, Governor.

*W.*G. Irwin, District Attorney, for plaintiff in error.

L. J. Gartrell; Henry Jackson & Brother, for defendants.

Subsequently, counsel for defendant in error procured other certificates from the Clerk and moved to reinstate the case. This was refused.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

NETWORK TALLAHASSEE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv38-RH/WCS

EMBARQ CORPORATION et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER ALLOWING MEMORANDUM OF EXCESSIVE LENGTH

The defendants’ consented motion, ECF No. 112, to file a memorandum of

excessive length in opposition to the plaintiff’s class-certification motion is

GRANTED. The defendants’ memorandum, ECF No. 113, is accepted as filed.

SO ORDERED on December 1, 2010.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00038-RH-WCS Document 115 Filed 12/01/10 Page 1 of 1