alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

CHRISTINE MOYES,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 4:09-CV-334-SPM/WCS

KEISER SCHOOL INC.,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Defendant’s Motion for

Clarification (doc. 118), of the Court’s Order (doc. 88) denying summary judgment.

Defendant seeks clarification with respect to Plaintiff’s hostile work environment

claims under Counts I and II of the amended complaint (doc. 13). In her response

to the Motion (doc. 120), Plaintiff explains that she does not intend to proceed with

a separate hostile work environment claim, and concedes that any such claim can

be dismissed. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any

separate hostile work environment claims set forth under Counts I and II of the

amended complaint are dismissed. 

DONE AND ORDERED this tenth day of May, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-00334-MCR-WCS Document 123 Filed 05/10/11 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ROOSEVELT THOMAS, 

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-142/RS-GRJ

HI-IMPACT DESIGNS, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

UORDER

Before me is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22). 

Plaintiff has not filed objections. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this Order. 

2. This case is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief and 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

ORDERED on July 15, 2011

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:10-cv-00142-RS-GRJ Document 23 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 14, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-55502]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 101


Food Labeling

CFR Correction

    In Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 100 to 169, 
revised as of April 1, 2006, on page 18, in Sec.  101.4, the 
introductory text of paragraph (h) is corrected by revising the phrase 
``or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 N. Capitol St. NW., 
suite 700, Washington, DC.'' to read: ``or at the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of 
this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.''
[FR Doc. 07-55502 Filed 3-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LEONARD THOMAS WALKER,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:09cv337/MCR/MD

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION,

Defendant.

 /

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge filed on March 1, 2010, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and after

reviewing objections to the Recommendation, if any, the Recommendation is

adopted as the opinion of the Court.

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 defendant’s motion to strike and to dismiss (doc. 16) is GRANTED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of April, 2010.

 s/M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### R. J. G. Blake, plaintiff in error, *vs.*J. B. Camp, defendant in error.

Where an attachment was sued out, returnable by law, to 1120th District, Georgia Militia and the bond, so recited, but the magistrate, by mistake, made the attachment returnable to the 919th District, Georgia Militia.

*Meld,*That if the levying officer, in fact, returned the papers to the proper district, to-wit: the 1120th, and judgment was then entered up on the attachment, the judgment was not void, and an affidavit of illegality, setting up these facts, was properly overruled.

Attachment. Amendments. Tried before Judge Harvey. Floyd Superior Court. July Term, 1871.

The facts are in the opinion.

Wright *&*Alexander, for plaintiff in error.

W. B. Terhune, by Wright & Featherston, for defendant.

McCay, Judge.

The attachment was returned by the officer to the 1120th district, which was the proper district, according to the last residence of the defendant, and the trial was had and judgment obtained before the magistrate of that district. By a mere slip of the pen, the magistrate who issued the attachment had made it returnable to his own district. He used his printed forms, and made it returnable to the Justices' *299Court of said district, which, as a matter of course, must be taken literally to be the district mentioned on the margin, to-wit: 919th district. But the bond recites the proper district; the officer who served the attachment returned the affidavit, bond and attachment to the proper district, and it was then tried and judgment given. The Court giving the judgment had jurisdiction of the case under the law. The only trouble is that the direction to the officer in the attachment process was, by a clerical error, wrong.

"We do not think this mistake makes the proceedings void. It is not the written direction to the sheriff or constable which gives the Court jurisdiction, but the law. If the officer had obeyed the direction and returned the papers as directed, the Court to which it would then have been returned, would not have had jurisdiction, and the judgment would have been void. As it is, the Court which tried the case was authorized to do so by the statute. Our statute of amendments is very broad. No technical objections even to a process are to be regarded, if the Court has jurisdiction: Section 3269 of the Code. Process is amendable: Code, section 194. The attachment and bond are amendable: Code, section 3240. The omission to give the Court jurisdiction in the pleadings is amendable: Code, section 3438. And it is laid down as a general rule, by McNamara on Irregularities, that nothing will make a judgment void that is amendable.

We therefore affirm the judgment in this case. We may add, that at the last term of this Court, in a ease from the Chattahoochee circuit, we held an attachment returnable on its face to the November Term of a Court, when it should have been made returnable to the May Term previously, was amendable if it was in fact returned by the officer to the May Term.

Judgment affirmed.
#### ST. LOUIS BARGE FLEETING SERVICE, INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. MID-AMERICA TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.

No. 17782.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Aug. 9, 1965.

Forrest Boecker, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

Paul C. Zempel, St. Louis, Mo., for ap-pellee.

Before BLACKMUN and RIDGE, Circuit Judges, and REGISTER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed for the reasons and law as stated in the opinion of the Trial Court in Mid-America Transportation Company v. St. Louis Barge Fleeting Service, Inc., (E.D. Mo.) 229 F.Supp. 409.
# C_2009059EN.01000601.xml

| 13.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 59/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

12 March 2009

(2009/C 59/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2782 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 124,30 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4526 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,93080 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,2122 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5225 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,8920 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,015 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 302,25 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7070 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6040 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2853 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,2284 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,9785 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6460 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,9120 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,4984 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9553 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 916,30 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 12,9469 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,7414 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4404 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 427,87 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7198 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,060 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 44,9973 |
| THB | Thai baht | 45,980 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,9724 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,2753 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 66,3260 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2782

JPY

Japanese yen

124,30

DKK

Danish krone

7,4526

GBP

Pound sterling

0,93080

SEK

Swedish krona

11,2122

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5225

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,8920

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,015

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

302,25

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7070

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6040

RON

Romanian leu

4,2853

TRY

Turkish lira

2,2284

AUD

Australian dollar

1,9785

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6460

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,9120

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,4984

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9553

KRW

South Korean won

1 916,30

ZAR

South African rand

12,9469

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,7414

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4404

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 427,87

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7198

PHP

Philippine peso

62,060

RUB

Russian rouble

44,9973

THB

Thai baht

45,980

BRL

Brazilian real

2,9724

MXN

Mexican peso

19,2753

INR

Indian rupee

66,3260

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>0000059240
<NAME> LIBERTY HOMES, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      16,280,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,465,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 16,045,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            57,212,000
<PP&E>                                      50,720,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              22,872,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              85,060,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       25,147,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,904,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  52,317,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                85,060,000
<SALES>                                    140,742,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           140,742,000
<CGS>                                      122,206,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,517,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,452,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,864,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,588,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,588,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .66


</TABLE>
**Exhibit23.2**

 

**Consent of Independent Auditors**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-39028) pertaining to the Optio Software, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan, Optio Software, Inc. Directors’ Stock Option Plan, and other stock options of our report dated March 7, 2002, except for Note 17, as towhich the date is April 29, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Optio Software, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 31, 2003. 

 

/s/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia 

April 28, 2003
Case 7:07-cv-03502-CLB Document 9 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 1 of 1
# C_2011236EN.01001501.xml

| 12.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/15 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Winding-up proceedings

Decision to open winding-up proceedings in respect of LEX LIFE & PENSION SA

(Publication in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)

2011/C 236/11

| Insurance undertaking | LEX LIFE & PENSION SA established and with registered office at
2-4, rue Beck 1222 Luxembourg LUXEMBOURG | 2-4, rue Beck | 1222 Luxembourg | LUXEMBOURG |
| ------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------- | -------------------------- | ------------------- |
| 2-4, rue Beck | | | | |
| 1222 Luxembourg | | | | |
| LUXEMBOURG | | | | |
| Date, entry into force and nature of the decision | Commercial judgment No 790/2011 of 13 July 2011 winding up LEX LIFE & PENSION SA
Entry into force: 13 July 2011 | | | |
| Competent authority | Tribunal d'arrondissement de Luxembourg Cité judiciaire Bâtiment TL, CO, TJ 2080 Luxembourg LUXEMBOURG | Tribunal d'arrondissement de Luxembourg | Cité judiciaire | Bâtiment TL, CO, TJ |
| Tribunal d'arrondissement de Luxembourg | | | | |
| Cité judiciaire | | | | |
| Bâtiment TL, CO, TJ | | | | |
| 2080 Luxembourg | | | | |
| LUXEMBOURG | | | | |
| Supervisory authority | Commissariat aux assurances 7, boulevard Royal 2449 Luxembourg LUXEMBOURG | Commissariat aux assurances | 7, boulevard Royal | 2449 Luxembourg |
| Commissariat aux assurances | | | | |
| 7, boulevard Royal | | | | |
| 2449 Luxembourg | | | | |
| LUXEMBOURG | | | | |
| Liquidator appointed | Maître Alain RUKAVINA 10A, boulevard de la Foire 1528 Luxembourg LUXEMBOURG BP 660 (L-2016) | Maître Alain RUKAVINA | 10A, boulevard de la Foire | 1528 Luxembourg |
| Maître Alain RUKAVINA | | | | |
| 10A, boulevard de la Foire | | | | |
| 1528 Luxembourg | | | | |
| LUXEMBOURG | | | | |
| BP 660 (L-2016) | | | | |
| Applicable law | Luxembourg law
Articles 58 and 60 of the amended Act of 6 December 1991 on the insurance sector, Articles 141, 144, 146, 147 and 149 of the Act of 10 August 1915 on commercial enterprises, and Articles 444, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 463, 464, 465-1, 3 and 5, 485, 487, 492, 499 paragraph 2, 528, 537, 538, 539, 540, 542, 543, 544, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 561, 562 and 567-1 of the Commercial Code, ‘Bankruptcy’ title | | | |

---
EXHIBIT 99.2
                            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 Lescarden Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 28th, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William E. Luther, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge:

   (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
        13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

   (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
        all material respects, the financial condition and result of
        operations of the Company.


               /s/ William E. Luther
                   William E. Luther
                   Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                   March 10, 2006
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Tam Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Green, Jabron, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Hereford Insurance Co., Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Law Office of Lawrence R. Miles (Lawrence R. Miles, Esq.), for appellant.The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Joseph D. DePalma, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered June 10, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. By order entered June 10, 2014, the Civil Court denied defendant's motion, but held, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that the only issue for trial was whether the verification remained outstanding. Defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied its motion.</p><p>While defendant made a prima facie showing that it had not received the requested verification, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant's motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (<a href="../2008/2008_04072.htm" target="_blank"><i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123</a> [2008]). As a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the requested verification remained outstanding, the Civil Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as premature (<a href="../2015/2015_51776.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co.</i>, 49 Misc 3d 152</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51776[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2015]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: September 15, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2089 

To prohibit the labeling of certain opioid drugs recommending use for longterm chronic pain. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 11, 2019 

Mr. MANCHIN (for himself and Mr. BRAUN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To prohibit the labeling of certain opioid drugs 

recommending use for long-term chronic pain. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘FDA Opioid Labeling 

5 Accuracy Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LABELING PROHIBITION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi8 sion of law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

9 (referred to in this Act as the ‘‘Secretary’’) may not apVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:07 Jul 16, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2089.IS S2089

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 2089 IS

1 prove labeling for an extended release or long-acting opioid 

2 analgesic drug unless, as applicable— 

3 (1) the labeling provides that such drug is not 

4 intended for the treatment of chronic pain, except in 

5 the case of— 

6 (A) treatment of pain related to cancer; 

7 (B) end-of-life care; or 

8 (C) a prescriber determination that, with 

9 respect to a particular patient, other non-opioid 

10 pain management treatments are inadequate or 

11 inappropriate; or 

12 (2) the labeling is consistent with the regula13 tions promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to sub14 section (b). 

15 (b) STUDY AND LABELING REGULATIONS.— 

16 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after 

17 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

18 shall— 

19 (A) conduct a study on the efficacy of 

20 opioid analgesic drugs for long-term chronic 

21 pain management; and 

22 (B) based on such study, promulgate regu23 lations regarding the labeling for extended re24 lease or long-acting opioid analgesic drugs, as 

25 scientifically appropriate. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 2089 IS

1 (2) UPDATES.—The Secretary may update the 

2 regulations promulgated under paragraph (1)(B), as 

3 appropriate. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1293

___________________________

Mark Daniel Crowley,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant,

v.

Maqez D. Nailor, Sergeant, Cummins Unit, ADC (Originally named as Nailor);

LaToya Woods, Corporal, Cummins Unit, ADC (Originally named as Woods);

Kenneth Starks, Captain, Cummins Unit, ADC (Originally named as Stark);

William Straughn, Warden, Cummins Unit, ADC (Originally named as Straughn);

Patrick Pierre, Sergeant, Cummins Unit, ADC (Originally named as Pierre),

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees.

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff

 ____________

Submitted: October 16, 2019

Filed: November 4, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Arkansas inmate Mark Crowley appeals an order and judgment of the district

court

1

dismissing his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. We agree that Crowley failed to exhaust his claims before

bringing suit as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Whether Crowley’s grievances

were deemed emergent or non-emergent, the prison’s policy allowed inmates to

appeal even if they received no response to their grievances. As Crowley did not

appeal after his grievances went unanswered, and he was not prevented from doing

so, he did not exhaust the process. See Porter, 781 F.3d at 452. Crowley’s mistaken

belief that an appeal of an unanswered grievance could be submitted only on a

grievance decision form did not show that the process was unavailable to him. He

offered no evidence to the district court that prison officials prevented him from

appealing. See Sergent v. Norris, 330 F.3d 1084, 1085-86 (8th Cir. 2003) (per

curiam); Chelette v. Harris, 229 F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2000). The judgment is

affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States DistrictJudge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Beth

Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-