alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LUCILLE BAKER, Administratrix of ROSWELL C. BAKER, Deceased, Plaintiff v. JACK F. SMITH, Defendant.

(Filed 10 November, 1965.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Olive, E.J.,*March 1965 Civil Session of DAVIDSON.

This action was instituted May 15, 1963 by Roswell C. Baker to recover damages for personal injuries he sustained January 27, 1963, about 6:45 p.m., dusk dark, as a result of a collision between his Ford and a Chevrolet.

Baker alleged defendant was the operator of the Baker car; that Baker was riding therein; and that the collision and Baker’s injuries *599were proximately caused by the actionable negligence of defendant. Answering, defendant denied all of Baker’s essential allegations.

Baker died April 18, 1964 from causes wholly unrelated to said collision of January 27, 1963. Baker’s administratrix now prosecutes said *'personal injury*action.

At the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence the court, granting defendant’s motion therefor, entered judgment of involuntary nonsuit.

*Charles F. Lambeth, Jr. and Harry 8. Cline for plaintiff appellant.*

*Smith, Moore, Smith, Schell & Hunter and Walser, Brinkley, Wal-ser & McGirt for defendant appellee.*

Per Curiam.

The evidence most favorable to plaintiff tends to show: Defendant was operating plaintiff’s Ford in an easterly direction on Unity Street in Thomasville at a speed of 15 or 20 miles an hour. The Chevrolet, headed in a westerly direction, was off the highway and on a “little pull-off” to defendant’s right.

The only testimony as to what occurred was that of one of the occupants of the Baker car. She testified: “The right front fender of the other car and the right front fender of the car I was in — they collided right there, as it was pulling out into the highway. At the time the collision occurred the other car was off and on the highway. The car I was in was still on the highway but the other car was a little off of the highway because when they hit it knocked it back.” Again: “Our car never left the highway.”

We find no evidence deemed sufficient to support a finding that the collision was proximately caused by the actionable negligence of the operator of the Baker Ford. On the contrary, the evidence indicates clearly that the action of the driver of the Chevrolet in attempting to drive onto the highway from a place of safety on the “pull-off” was the sole proximate cause of the collision.

Apparently, the identity of the owner and driver of the Chevrolet is unknown. Nothing in the record indicates that such driver lingered at the scene of collision.

The judgment of involuntary nonsuit is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 12.1
 CERTIFICATION
 I, Mark Michael Wellesley-Wood, certify that: 1)
  2)
        3)
      Report;
 4)
 The Company's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:
 
               
            
            5)
      functions):
             
          
  
 /s/ Mark Michael Wellesley-Wood Mark Michael Wellesley-Wood Chief Executive Officer


Exhibit 12.2
 CERTIFICATION
 I, John William Cornelius Sayers, certify that: 1)
  2)
        3)
      Report;
 4)
 The Company's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:
 
               
            
            5)
      functions):
             
          
  
 /s/John William Cornelius Sayers John William Cornelius Sayers Chief Financial Officer
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |    /s/ Richard Douglas                                      |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  Richard Douglas                                                      |
|  Title:    |  Principal Executive Officer,Principal Financial Officer and Director |
|  Date:     |  June 21, 2010                                                        |
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 annual report of Arkados Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending May 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Larry L Crawford, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.







/s/ Larry L Crawford


Larry L Crawford


Chief Financial Officer


October 14, 2009
# C_2009237EN.01000302.xml

| 2.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5630 — MD Investors/Metaldyne)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 237/03

On 25 September 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5630. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5630. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# C_2009292EN.01000501.xml

| 2.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/5

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1

1,00 % on 1 December 2009

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

1 December 2009

2009/C 292/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,5074 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,02 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4422 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,90985 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,4185 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5079 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,4805 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,950 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 271,86 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7082 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1098 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2550 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,2662 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6355 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5761 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,6824 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0769 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0822 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 748,18 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,0666 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,2895 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3140 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 250,60 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0924 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 70,632 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,9200 |
| THB | Thai baht | 50,035 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6136 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,4078 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 69,7550 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,5074

JPY

Japanese yen

131,02

DKK

Danish krone

7,4422

GBP

Pound sterling

0,90985

SEK

Swedish krona

10,4185

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5079

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,4805

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,950

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

271,86

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7082

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1098

RON

Romanian leu

4,2550

TRY

Turkish lira

2,2662

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6355

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5761

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,6824

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0769

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0822

KRW

South Korean won

1 748,18

ZAR

South African rand

11,0666

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,2895

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3140

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 250,60

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0924

PHP

Philippine peso

70,632

RUB

Russian rouble

43,9200

THB

Thai baht

50,035

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6136

MXN

Mexican peso

19,4078

INR

Indian rupee

69,7550

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

1

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

2

Source:

---
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Eagle Broadband, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending August 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Weisman, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, 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:  October 11, 2004

/s/ David A. Weisman
David A. Weisman,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 4.2

 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated April 17, 2020, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2009 contained in Amendment
No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-236190) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned
report in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.




	 	/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP






 


Chicago, Illinois


April 17, 2020
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 26, 2010 

d0719 

Order 

 

July 26, 2010 

140901 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140901 

 COA: 296364 

Oakland CC: 2009-224777-FH 

WILLIAM LEO GRAY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 10, 2010 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DAVID WAYNE MCCORMICK,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 3:10cv253/MCR/MD

ARMOR MEDICAL, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On August 13, 2010, this court entered an order (doc. 17) granting plaintiff’s motion

to proceed in forma pauperis and requiring plaintiff to pay the initial filing fee assessed by

this court for the filing of his civil rights complaint. Plaintiff was unable to timely comply due

to a misunderstanding with prison officials, which was resolved, and he was given an

additional twenty-eight (28) days in which to pay the filing fee (doc. 23). After that time

elapsed and plaintiff had neither paid the assessed fee nor explained his inability to do so,

on October 29, 2010 the court entered an order to show cause why the case should not

be dismissed for his failure to comply (doc. 25). This order was returned to the court as

undeliverable one day after the court received plaintiff’s notice of change of address.

Plaintiff was given one final opportunity to comply with the court’s order of August

13, 2010 in order to avoid dismissal. As previously instructed, he was ordered to submit

his initial partial filing fee of $11.33 along with any amount that had come due since that

fee was assessed. (Doc. 29). To date, plaintiff has failed to comply with this court’s orders

or explain his inability to do so.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an

order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 16 day of December, 2010. th

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

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 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 any objections shall be served

upon any 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: 3:10cv253/MCR/MD
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JONATHAN LEE RICHES,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:09cv323-SPM/WCS

BYRD BILLINGS, et al., 

 

Defendants.

________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation dated November 6, 2009 (doc. 6). Plaintiff

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 hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 6) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is dismissed with prejudice as malicious and for failure to
Page 2 of 2

prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. 

3. The clerk shall note that the dismissal is under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2).

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of December, 2009.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

CASE NO. 4:09cv323-SPM/WCS
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5167 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5167

 To provide for the termination of residential or motor vehicle leases 
 and telephone service contracts for Foreign Service officers, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 2018

    Mr. McCaul (for himself and Mr. Castro of Texas) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the termination of residential or motor vehicle leases 
 and telephone service contracts for Foreign Service officers, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Foreign Service Officer Civil Relief 
Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF RESIDENTIAL OR MOTOR VEHICLE LEASES AND 
              TELEPHONE SERVICE CONTRACTS FOR CERTAIN FOREIGN SERVICE 
              OFFICERS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 9 of title I of the Foreign Service Act of 
1980 (22 U.S.C. 4081 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new section:

``SEC. 907. TERMINATION OF RESIDENTIAL OR MOTOR VEHICLE LEASES AND 
              TELEPHONE SERVICE CONTRACTS.

    ``The terms governing the termination of residential or motor 
vehicle leases and telephone service contracts described in sections 
305 and 305A, respectively of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 
U.S.C. 3955 and 3956) with respect to servicemembers who receive 
military orders described in such Act shall apply in the same manner 
and to the same extent to members of the Service who are posted abroad 
at a Foreign Service post in accordance with this Act.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 2 of the 
Foreign Service Act of 1980 is amended by inserting after the item 
relating to section 906 the following new item:

``Sec. 907. Termination of residential or motor vehicle leases and 
                            telephone service contracts.''.
                                 <all>
```
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ANTHONY DALE SIKORA,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00158-MP-WCS

LARRY CAMPBELL,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 3, Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge, recommending that the Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) be dismissed as moot, since

Petitioner has been released. The Petitioner did not leave a forwarding address at the jail and has

not informed the Court of his current address. Thus, the Report and Recommendation was

returned undeliverable. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and

incorporated herein.

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1, is dismissed as moot. The Clerk

is directed to close this file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
'UM>AQ&L

a^^L^tixJ^BSt

^M&h^iJA^-

lMM/-£$<+353$-

llLM&L

• RECEIVED IN

M^rm2_ AbelAcosia,Clerk

JdLC&jfc^dLi/L

1AM2JL

4©/-^4^^S^^

^^.j2^^w^^^

'$lU4Utte^^

£>3}lI^JJ£?3£L_

,J^U^^-\J-&/23- -£l3

izJ^2ajLu

72/^
^^JmJ^sM^- ZUM1M1£&Jn_

^M^lM

T- TO£L

'SIctJF
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ROBERT GILLIAM,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv319-SPM/WCS

R. A. PURDUE, 

Respondent.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO TRANSFER § 2241 PETITION

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas

corpus. Doc. 1. He did not submit service copies, and did not pay the $ 5.00 filing fee

or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Petitioner challenges the execution of his sentence by the Bureau of Prisons

(BOP). He asks the court to direct the BOP to properly consider him for the maximum

term of placement in a Residential Re-entry Center (RRC), citing the Second Chance

Act of 2007 (effective April 9, 2008). Doc. 1, p. 18. 

Petitioner styles his pleading as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and his

challenge to the execution of sentence should be raised in a habeas corpus proceeding. 
Page 2 of 2

But Petitioner is incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia,1 and

this court lacks jurisdiction. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442, 124 S.Ct.

2711, 2722, 159 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004) (courts are limited by § 2241(a) to granting habeas

relief "within their respective jurisdictions," and must have jurisdiction over the

custodian; the traditional rule is that the writ is "issuable only in the district of

confinement.") (citations omitted). Transfer to the district of confinement is appropriate. 

It is therefore respectfully RECOMMENDED that this cause be TRANSFERRED

to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for all further

proceedings. . 

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on August 3, 2010.

 S/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 10 days after

being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of

review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

1

 Petitioner may have filed here because he was convicted in this district; he

provides case number 4:07cr19-01 in the style of the petition. Doc. 1, p. 1. In that

criminal case, Petitioner was originally sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 168

months, later reduced to 96 months. See docs. 28 and 34 in 4:07cr19-RH. 

Case No. 4:10cv319-RH/WCS