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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

vs. 3:10cr6/MCR 

JOHN I. LEWIS,

 Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11,

Fed.R.Crim.P., and has entered a plea of guilty to the two count indictment against

him. After cautioning and examining the defendant under oath concerning the

subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable

and voluntary, and that the offense charged is supported by an independent basis

in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore

recommend that the plea of guiltybe accepted and that the defendant be adjudicated

guilty and have sentence imposed accordingly.

Dated: July 20, 2010

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed

within 24 hours after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may

appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not

control. A copy of objections shall be served upon 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 (11 Cir. 1988). th
# C_2009087EN.01000101.xml

| 16.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 April 2009

2009/C 87/01

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3173 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,70 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4498 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88210 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,8650 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5100 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,8405 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,883 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 290,79 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7092 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3005 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1935 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1162 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,8352 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6004 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2094 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,2912 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9810 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 757,28 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 12,1509 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,0001 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3767 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 351,98 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7522 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,790 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 44,1005 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,758 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,9223 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,4346 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 65,4370 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3173

JPY

Japanese yen

130,70

DKK

Danish krone

7,4498

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88210

SEK

Swedish krona

10,8650

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5100

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,8405

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,883

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

290,79

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7092

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3005

RON

Romanian leu

4,1935

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1162

AUD

Australian dollar

1,8352

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6004

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2094

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,2912

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9810

KRW

South Korean won

1 757,28

ZAR

South African rand

12,1509

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,0001

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3767

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 351,98

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7522

PHP

Philippine peso

62,790

RUB

Russian rouble

44,1005

THB

Thai baht

46,758

BRL

Brazilian real

2,9223

MXN

Mexican peso

17,4346

INR

Indian rupee

65,4370

---

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

1

Source

---
Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP -GRJ Document 176 Filed 02/15/11 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP -GRJ Document 176 Filed 02/15/11 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32(b)

ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORP.

Certificate Pursuant
to Section 906

of Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002

CERTIFICATION OF CFO

The undersigned, Paul M.
Keglevic, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Energy Future Holdings Corp. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 (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. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 18th day of February 2010.



/s/ PAUL M. KEGLEVICName:

Paul M. KeglevicTitle:

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Energy Future Holdings Corp. and will be retained by Energy Future Holdings Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________ No. 02-60390 Summary Calendar

_______________________
RIAD ELSOH HAMAD, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Decision of the United States Tax Court (7748-01)

_________________________________________________________________ November 26, 2002 Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge: *

The appellant challenges the validity of the U.S. Tax Court’s decision entered after the appellant filed an amended tax
return. Because the appellant does not cite any authority in support of his position, th is Court considers the challenge abandoned for being inadequately briefed. L&A Contracting Co. v.S. Concrete Servs., Inc. , 17 F.3d 106, 113 (5th Cir. 1994);

F.R.A.P. 28(a)(9)(A).
AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

PENNSYLVANIA LAWYERS FUND FOR 

CLIENT SECURITY,

Respondent

v.

TERRY SILVA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 369 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of November, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2432 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2432

 To require Amtrak to place at least 1 station agent in every State in 
                         which Amtrak operates.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 1, 2019

  Mr. Manchin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require Amtrak to place at least 1 station agent in every State in 
                         which Amtrak operates.

    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 ``Station Agent in Every Amtrak State 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Amtrak.--The term ``Amtrak'' means the National 
        Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as ``Amtrak''.
            (2) Station agent.--The term ``station agent'' means an 
        Amtrak employee who is responsible for--
                    (A) assisting passengers with intercity passenger 
                rail travel;
                    (B) selling Amtrak tickets;
                    (C) providing customer service during operating 
                hours; or
                    (D) performing building maintenance duties at any 
                Amtrak facility.

SEC. 3. AMTRAK STATION AGENTS.

    Amtrak shall ensure that not fewer than 1 station agent is placed 
in every State in which Amtrak operates.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DELBERT JAMES STRENGTH,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 24

- 00104

- C R

Appeal from the

119th District Court

of Runnels County, Texas

(TC # 7177)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on Appellant ’ s motion to dismiss the appeal and

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore dismiss

the appeal. We further order this decision be cert ified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE 20 24

.

LISA J. SOTO

, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2131
MILDRED GOLLIE, widow of Joe Gollie, deceased, Petitioner,

versus ELKAY MINING COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (02-741-BLA) Submitted: March 24, 2004 Decided: April 8, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leonard Stayton, Inez, Kentucky, for Petitioner. Douglas A. Smoot, Kathy L. Snyder, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Mildred Gollie seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-45 (2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See Gollie v. Elkay Mining Co. , No. 02-741-BLA (BRB July 31, 2003). 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.

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0543

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JUSTIN GUY ZENO SHAWN WOLF MASON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 30, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 23 2022

12/23/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0543
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. ss. 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**ss.
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB as amended by Amendment No.
      1
      on Form 10-KSB/A of SulphCo, Inc. (as amended, the "Report")of SulphCo, Inc.
      (the "Company") for the annual period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, Rudolf W. Gunnerman,
      Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      and Alan L. Austin, Jr., Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the
      Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his
      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 results of operations of the Company.





*/s/
                Rudolf W. Gunnerman*
              *Rudolf
                W. Gunnerman*
              *Chairman
                of the Board of Directors*
              *and
                Chief Executive Officer*
              
              
              *June
                10, 2005*
              
              
              
              */s/
                Alan L. Austin, Jr.*
              *Alan
                L. Austin, Jr.*
              *Principal
                Financial*
              *and
                Accounting Officer*
              
              *June
                10, 2005*








This
                certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss. 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 ss. 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                amended
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

HENRY L. BENNETT,

Petitioner,

v. No. 3:10cv118/LAC/MD

WALTER A. MCNEIL,

Respondent. 

______________________________________________________________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge filed on November 8, 2010, and no objections having been filed, the

Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B). 

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. The respondent’s motion to dismiss with prejudice (doc. 9)is GRANTED

and the petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 3) challenging the convictions and

sentences in State of Florida v. Henry L. Bennett, Jr., entered in the Circuit Court of

Escambia County, Florida, case number 05-3403, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

3. The petitioner’s motion for stay (doc. 4) is DENIED.

4. The clerk is directed to close the file.

5. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 13 day of December, 2010. th

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2311 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2311

To expand eligibility for the My Career Advancement Account program of 
 the Department of Defense to certain military spouses, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 29, 2019

Mr. Booker (for himself and Ms. McSally) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To expand eligibility for the My Career Advancement Account program of 
 the Department of Defense to certain military spouses, 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 ``Spouse Employment Reciprocity and 
Vocational Instruction for Career Enhancement Act of 2019'' or the 
``SERVICE Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR THE MY CAREER ADVANCEMENT ACCOUNT 
              PROGRAM TO CERTAIN MILITARY SPOUSES.

    (a) Eligibility for Participants Whose Spouses Receive 
Promotions.--A military spouse who is participating in the My Career 
Advancement Account program of the Department of Defense (in this 
section referred to as the ``Program'') may not become ineligible for 
the Program solely because the member of the Armed Forces to whom the 
military spouse is married receives a promotion in grade.
    (b) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
Congress a report regarding the Program. The report shall include the 
following:
            (1) An assessment of employment rates for military spouses 
        that identifies--
                    (A) the career fields most military spouses 
                frequently pursue; and
                    (B) the extent to which such rates may be improved 
                by expanding the Program to include reimbursements for 
                licensing reciprocity.
            (2) An assessment of costs required to expand the Program 
        as described in paragraph (1)(B).
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

PRESTON H. JONES, JR.,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv139-MP/WCS

SGT. LISA MESSER, 

MEDICAL PERSONNEL, and

ASST. WARDEN FELICIA NOBLES,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before me upon referral from the Clerk. In an order filed July 28,

2010, Plaintiff was directed to file a third amended complaint by August 30, 2010. 

Plaintiff was specifically warned that a recommendation would be made that this case

be dismissed if there was a failure to comply with that order. Doc. 21. On August 5,

2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for enlargement of time to file the third amended complaint,

doc. 22, which was granted in this court’s order entered August 9, 2010, and the time

for filing the third amended complaint was extended to October 29, 2010. Doc. 23. To

date, no response has been received from the Plaintiff. 

A trial court has inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to

prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to obey a
court order. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 838 and cases cited (11th Cir.), cert.

denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989). Since Plaintiff has failed to comply with an order or to

prosecute this case, this complaint should now be dismissed without prejudice. 

Plaintiff shall have a 14 day period after service of this report and

recommendation in which to file objections. This will also afford Plaintiff a final

opportunity to show good cause for this failure to respond. Plaintiff may do so by filing a

motion for reconsideration which will be referred to me by the Clerk.

It is therefore, respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED

without prejudice.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on November 22, 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 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being

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

proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:10cv139-MP/WCS Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2315 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2315

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend section 4712 of title 41, United States Code, to clarify the 
     inclusion of subcontractors and subgrantees for whistleblower 
                              protection.

    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 ``Whistleblower Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION AGAINST REPRISAL FOR FEDERAL SUBGRANTEE EMPLOYEES.

    Section 4712 of title 41, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(2)(G), by striking ``or grantee'' and 
        inserting ``grantee, or subgrantee'';
            (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``contractor or 
        grantee'' and inserting ``contractor, subcontractor, grantee, 
        or subgrantee'';
            (3) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``contractor or 
        grantee'' each place it appears and inserting ``contractor, 
        subcontractor, grantee, or subgrantee''; and
            (4) in subsection (d), by striking ``and grantees'' and 
        inserting ``grantees, and subgrantees''.

            Passed the Senate December 9, 2020.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2315

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend section 4712 of title 41, United States Code, to clarify the 
     inclusion of subcontractors and subgrantees for whistleblower 
                              protection.
```
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

LAMAR PLAYER,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00098-MP-AK

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondents.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 filing fee or filed a motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis. Therefore, consideration of the petition will be deferred until

payment is received or IFP is granted.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. That the Clerk shall forward to Petitioner an application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis;

2. That Petitioner shall have until July 6, 2010, to either file an application for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $5.00 filing fee;

3. That failure to respond to this order as instructed may result in the dismissal of
Page 2 of 2

1 Petitioner should note that if he fails to respond to this Order and this case is dismissed, any subsequentlyfiled habeas petition in this Court challenging the same conviction may be barred by the one-year limitation period

for filing a habeas petition in the federal courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Although the one-year period of

limitation is tolled during the time in which a properly filed application for state post- conviction relief is pending,

see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8-9 (2000) (defining when an application is "properly filed" under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(2)), the time in which a federal habeas petition is pending does not toll the one-year limitation period. See

Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001) (holding that an application for federal habeas corpus review does not toll

the one-year limitation period under § 2244(d)(2)).

Case No: 1:10-cv-00098-MP-AK

this case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an order of this court.1 

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of June, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge