alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009066EN.01002501.xml

| 20.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 66/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 66/25

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

19 March 2009

(2009/C 66/09)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3671 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 129,67 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4514 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,94050 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,8663 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5385 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,6450 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,779 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 298,50 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7080 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5410 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3003 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3047 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,9771 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6732 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5972 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,4601 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0589 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 897,94 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,0797 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,3352 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4555 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 357,35 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9933 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 65,830 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 45,6515 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,430 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0624 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,8722 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 68,7790 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3671

JPY

Japanese yen

129,67

DKK

Danish krone

7,4514

GBP

Pound sterling

0,94050

SEK

Swedish krona

10,8663

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5385

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,6450

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,779

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

298,50

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7080

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5410

RON

Romanian leu

4,3003

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3047

AUD

Australian dollar

1,9771

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6732

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5972

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,4601

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0589

KRW

South Korean won

1 897,94

ZAR

South African rand

13,0797

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,3352

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4555

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 357,35

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9933

PHP

Philippine peso

65,830

RUB

Russian rouble

45,6515

THB

Thai baht

48,430

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0624

MXN

Mexican peso

18,8722

INR

Indian rupee

68,7790

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2010152EN.01000301.xml

| 11.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

10 June 2010

2010/C 152/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2045 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 109,84 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4390 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,82520 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5775 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,3788 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8650 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,965 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 282,04 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7077 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1218 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2203 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9224 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4310 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2486 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,3875 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7686 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6992 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 506,33 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,3345 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2277 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2335 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 128,38 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9732 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,241 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 38,0912 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,170 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2081 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 15,4266 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 56,5030 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2045

JPY

Japanese yen

109,84

DKK

Danish krone

7,4390

GBP

Pound sterling

0,82520

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5775

CHF

Swiss franc

1,3788

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8650

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,965

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

282,04

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7077

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1218

RON

Romanian leu

4,2203

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9224

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4310

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2486

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,3875

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7686

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6992

KRW

South Korean won

1 506,33

ZAR

South African rand

9,3345

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2277

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2335

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 128,38

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9732

PHP

Philippine peso

56,241

RUB

Russian rouble

38,0912

THB

Thai baht

39,170

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2081

MXN

Mexican peso

15,4266

INR

Indian rupee

56,5030

---

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

1

Source

---
Case 4:10-cv-00316-RH-WCS Document 5 Filed 07/27/10 Page 1 of 10
Case 4:10-cv-00316-RH-WCS Document 5 Filed 07/27/10 Page 2 of 10
Case 4:10-cv-00316-RH-WCS Document 5 Filed 07/27/10 Page 3 of 10
Case 4:10-cv-00316-RH-WCS Document 5 Filed 07/27/10 Page 4 of 10
Case 4:10-cv-00316-RH-WCS Document 5 Filed 07/27/10 Page 5 of 10
Case 4:10-cv-00316-RH-WCS Document 5 Filed 07/27/10 Page 6 of 10
Case 4:10-cv-00316-RH-WCS Document 5 Filed 07/27/10 Page 7 of 10
Case 4:10-cv-00316-RH-WCS Document 5 Filed 07/27/10 Page 8 of 10
Case 4:10-cv-00316-RH-WCS Document 5 Filed 07/27/10 Page 9 of 10
Case 4:10-cv-00316-RH-WCS Document 5 Filed 07/27/10 Page 10 of 10
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

# TIME AND DATE:

11 a.m., Friday, December 14, 2007.

# PLACE:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Surveillance matters.

      ( print page 65709)    

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Sauntia S. Warfield, (202) 418-5084.

David A. Stawick,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 07-5821  Filed 11-20-07; 11:30 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
#### FENCO, INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 9916.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued June 2, 1965.

Decided June 28, 1965.

P. McEvoy Cromwell and William H. Gorman, II, Baltimore, Md. (Hilary W. Gans, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellant.

Miss Jeanine Jacobs, Attorney, Department of Justice (Louis F. Ober-dorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lee A. Jackson and Melva M. Graney, Attorneys, Department of Justice, and Thomas J. Kenney, U. S. Atty., and Robert W. Kernan, Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.

Before BRYAN and BELL, Circuit Judges, and BARKSDALE, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Accumulated earnings taxes under §§ 531-533, Internal Revenue Code of 1954 were assessed by the Commissioner against Fenco, Inc. who now appeals the judgment of the District Court upholding the assessment. Whether “the earnings and profits of [the] corporation [were] permitted to accumulate beyond the reasonable needs of the business * * * to avoid the income tax with respect to shareholders” was in this case largely a factual determination. The findings of the trial court are certainly not “clearly erroneous” and we accept them. Rule 52, F.R.Civ.P. Nor do we *457observe fault in the principles of law the Court stated or as it applied them. We affirm for the reasons given by the District Judge in his written opinion, reported as Fenco, Inc. v. United States of America, 234 F.Supp. 317 (D.C.Md. 1964).

Affirmed.
#### STATE v. MOSES

No. 254 PC.

Case below: 52 N.C. App. 412.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 16 July 1981.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7069

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LYNVAL KERRIS ANDERSON, JR., a/k/a Jamaican Pete, a/k/a Michael Reid, a/k/a Joseph Anderson, a/k/a Amxmill Kerris, a/k/a Lynval Kerris, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-143, CA-00-522) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 29, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lynval Kerris Anderson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Additionally, this court’s records disclose that Anderson’s claims relating to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), were raised initially in his § 2255 motion. Our recent decision in United States v. Sanders , 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir. 2001), thereby independently forecloses these claims. 2 PER CURIAM: Lynval Kerris Anderson, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. * United States v. Anderson , Nos. CR-98-143; CA-00-522 (E.D. Va. Apr. 26, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### BOOKER v. MEDICAL CENTER

No. 63 PC.

Case below: 32 N.C. App. 185.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 5 April 1977.
Page 1 of 1

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.

___________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated July 9, 2010 (Doc. 14). Petitioner has been furnished a copy of the Report

and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28,

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined that the Report and

Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by

reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Petitioner’s failure to comply

with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11 day of August, 2010. th

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LAMONT CLIFFORD KING, #466560

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:10cv258/RV/EMT

JAMES SHEPPARD, Chief Health Officer;

JOHN LOVELACE, Senior Registered Nurse,

Defendants.

____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated October 23, 2012 (doc. 81). The parties have been furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined that the Report and

Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by

reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of November, 2012.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

1 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40741 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GERBER FRANCISCO SURIANO-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-00-CR-103-1

__________________________________________

February 23, 2001 Before POLITZ, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 

### Gerber Francisco Suriano-Hernandez appeals his conviction and sentence from a guilty plea for illegal reentry following a prior deportation. 1 

### Suriano contends that the felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an element of the offense that should have been charged in2 523 U.S. 224 (1998). 3 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). 4 Apprendi , 120 S. Ct. at 2361-62 & n.15; Almendarez-Torres , 523 U.S. at 235. 5 F ED . R. C RIM . P. 32(c)(3)(C); United States v. Myers , 150 F.3d 459 (5th Cir. 1998). 6 United States v. Echegollen-Barrueta , 195 F.3d 786 (5th Cir. 1999). 

### the indictment. He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 2 

### but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey . 3 

### Apprendi did not overrule AlmendarezTorres and this argument, therefore, is foreclosed. 4 

### Suriano also maintains that the district court denied his right to allocution. 5 

### The Government acknowledges that the court failed in this regard and that the sentence should be vacated and the case remanded to allow Suriano an opportunity at resentencing to speak on his own behalf. 6 

### Accordingly, Suriano’s sentence is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for resentencing.
Exhibit 32.1








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-QA of Plata Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the nine months ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Dexter R. Caliso, 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.





Dated:    January 25, 2011








DEXTER R. CALISO


Dexter R. Caliso


Chief Executive Officer,


President and Director










-1-
# C_2011369EN.01001701.xml

| 17.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 369/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/17

---

Notice for the attention of the persons to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision 2011/847/CFSP, and in Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1320/2011 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus apply

2011/C 369/05

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

The following information is brought to the attention of persons that appear in Annex IIIA to Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2011/847/CFSP (1), and in Annex IA to Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1320/2011 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Belarus.

1

2

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2010/639/CFSP and in Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus. The grounds for designations of those persons appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

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 in the web-sites in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 3 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 above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG K Coordination Unit |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG K Coordination Unit

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, 2nd paragraph, and Article 263, 4th and 6th paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 335, 17.12.2011, p. 81.

1

(2)  OJ L 335, 17.12.2011, p. 15.

2

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

CHARLES MORROW and

FLORA MORROW, 

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-137/RS-GRJ

GREENSOUTH EQUIPMENT, INC,

d/b/a GREENSOUTH EQUIPMENT –

TALLAHASSEE, ET AL., 

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

UORDER

Before me is the Joint Notice of Settlement (Doc. 30) indicating that a settlement 

has been reached. Pursuant to N.D. Fla. Loc. 16.2 it is ordered: 

1. The case is dismissed from the active docket of the court. 

2. In the event that the settlement is not consummated, the court reserves 

jurisdiction, upon motion filed by any party within sixty days of the date of this 

Order, to amend or vacate and set aside this Order and reinstate the case. 

3. The clerk is directed to close the file of this case for administrative purposes, 

and upon the expiration of sixty days without activity, the clerk is direct to 

close the case in its entirety for all purposes. 

4. All outstanding motions are denied as moot. 
ORDERED on December 29, 2010

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the Trustee of Marine Petroleum Trust (the “Trust”) does hereby certify, to its knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2024 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Trust fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 
|                                                                                                                                      |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/  Jana Egeler                                                                                                                     |
| Jana Egeler                                                                                                                          |
| Vice President on behalf of Argent Trust Company, not in its individual capacity but solely as the Trustee of Marine Petroleum Trust |

 

Dated: February 13, 2025

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

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Trust, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

----
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

KIMBERLY KLINE-PARRIS, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 1:10-cv-00111-MP-GRJ

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion For Enlargement Of Time. (Doc.

18.) Defendant requests a thirty day extension of time to file his response to Plaintiff’s

Memorandum. The current deadline for filing Defendant’s response memorandum is

November 25, 2010. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(B), counsel certifies that Plaintiff’s

counsel does not object to the requested relief. 

Accordingly, upon due consideration, Defendant’s Motion For Enlargement Of

Time (Doc. 18) is GRANTED. Defendant shall file his response memorandum by

December 27, 2010.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22 day of November, 2010. 

nd

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

TECHSHELL, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10cv154/RS-MD

HARD CANDY CASES, LLC;

SPECK PRODUCT DESIGN, INC.;

IPEARL, INC.; XGEAR, LLC;

CASE-MATE GEORGIA, LLC;

CASE-MATE INTERNATIONAL, LLC;

and CASE-MATE RETAIL, INC.,

Defendants.

___________________________________________/

ORDER

Plaintiff Techshell, Inc.’s Motion To Compel Mediation (Doc. 122) is denied as

moot. See Docs. 137 and 138.

ORDERED on February 16, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE