alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JAMES SHOWERS,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv271/LC/MD

DAVID MORGAN,

Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner commenced this action on July 29, 2010 by filing a petition for writ

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). He filed an amended petition on 

September 9, 2010, which was accompanied by a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis. (Docs. 5, 6). On September 10, 2010, the court entered an order denying

petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 7). Petitioner was directed

to submit the $5.00 filing fee within twenty-eight days, and further directed to submit

two service copies of his amended petition. Petitioner was warned that failure to

comply with the order would result in a recommendation that this case be

dismissed.

 Petitioner did not comply with the order. Accordingly, on October 26, 2010,

the court issued an order directing petitioner to show cause within fourteen days

why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the

court. That deadline has passed, and petitioner has neither responded to the order

to show cause, nor complied with the court’s September 10, 2010 order. 

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for plaintiff’s failure to

comply with an order of the court, and that the clerk be directed to close the file.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 2 day of December, 2010. nd

 /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 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 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

Case No: 3:10cv271/LC/MD
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

____________ No. 22-40669 Summary Calendar

____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee ,

versus Javier Escalera, Jr., Defendant—Appellant

.

______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:20-CR-1654-1

______________________________ Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * Javier Escalera, Jr., appeals his 60 -month prison terms for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin and possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin. He challenges the district court’s determin ation that he was ineligible for the safety valve under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) because he has a prior offense that

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 4, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-40669 Document: 00516738879 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2023No. 22-40669

2 received three criminal history poin ts. Escalera contends that, under § 3553(f)(1), a defendant’s criminal hi story precludes relief only if he has more than four criminal history points (not counting one-point offenses), a prior three-point offense, and a prior two-point violent offense. However, he concedes that the issue is foreclosed by our holding in United States v. Palomares , 52 F.4th 640, 642, 647 (5th Cir. 2022), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Dec. 21, 2022) (No. 22-340), that a defendant is inelig ible for the safety valve if his criminal history satisfies just one of those conditions.
Because the sole issue is foreclosed and “there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED , Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED . The Government’s alternativ e motion for an extension of time to file its appellate brief is DENIED . Escalera’s motion to hold the appeal in abeyance pending th e Supreme Court’s decision in Pulsifer v. United States , 39 F.4th 1018 (8th Cir. 2022), cert. granted (U.S. Feb. 27, 2023) (No. 21-1609), is DENIED

. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez , 526 F.3d 804, 808 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). Case: 22-40669 Document: 00516738879 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2023
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4989

_____________________________

MICHAEL DEMETRIC POLICE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Suwannee County.

David W. Fina, Judge.

June 24, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### STATE v. NOBLES

No. 137 PC.

Case below: 14 N.C. App. 340.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 1 August 1972.
<Page>

EXHIBIT 32

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Simulations Plus, Inc., a California
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended August 31, 2007,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Walter S.
Woltosz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Momoko A. Beran, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant
of ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to
his/her 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/ Walter S. Woltosz
---------------------
Walter S. Woltosz
Chief Executive Officer
November 23, 2007


/s/ Momoko A. Beran
-------------------
Momoko A. Beran
Chief Financial Officer
November 23, 2007


(A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Simulations Plus, Inc. and will be retained by Simulations Plus,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.)
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-22      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 1 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-22      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 2 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-22      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 3 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-22      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 4 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-22      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 5 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-22      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 6 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-22      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 7 of 7
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.5 (COMPANY LOGO) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Southwark Towers
32 London Bridge Street
London SE1 9SY
Telephone +44 (0) 20 7583 5000
Facsimile +44 (0) 20 7833 4652 The Directors
Barclays Bank PLC
1234 Pavilion Drive
Northampton
NN4 7SG The Directors
Gracechurch Card Funding (No. 4) PLC
54 Lombard Street
London
EC3P 3AH The Directors
Barclaycard Funding PLC
54 Lombard Street
London
EC3P 3AH The Directors
Gracechurch Receivables Trustee Limited
26 New Street
St. Helier
Jersey
JE2 3RA February 28, 2004 Dear Sirs Report of Independent Accountants We have examined managements Annual Servicer Certificate (Exhibit 99.4) that
Barclays Bank PLC (the Servicer), a wholly owned subsidiary of Barclays PLC,
has fulfilled its obligations, in its capacity as Servicer, in respect of the
minimum servicing requirements for the credit card receivables arising on
designated accounts as set forth in the clauses of the Beneficiaries Servicing
Agreement between Barclaycard Funding PLC and Barclays Bank PLC dated 23
November 1999 (BSA) specified in paragraph 3 below during the year ended 31
December 2003 . Management is responsible for the Servicers compliance with
those requirements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on Servicers
fulfilment of obligations under the BSA based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
managements assertion about the companys compliance with those requirements
and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for
our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the
Servicers compliance with specified servicing requirements. We examined the Servicers compliance with the BSA clauses 2.1 d, 2.1.e, 2.1.f,
2.1.j, 2.2.a, 2.5.a and 2.5.b, using definitions set forth in the Master
Definitions schedule between Gracechurch Receivables Trustee Limited, Barclays
Bank PLC and Barclaycard Funding PLC dated 8 April 2003.




---



##### 



Our examination of the cash management report for September 2003, identified an
error in the cash transfer calculation, which resulted in an incorrect payment
of £8,667,005 being made by the Servicer to Gracechurch Receivables Trustee
Limited, which is an exception in relation to clause 2.5b. In our opinion, except for the deviation stated in the previous paragraph,
managements assertion that the Servicer complied with the aforementioned
requirements during the year ended 31 December 2003 is fairly stated, in all
material respects. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 28 February 2004 Yours faithfully, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP End of Filing
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

BARBARA ENGLAND; DOCTORS

LICENSURE GROUP, INC.; and

ANESTAT, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No.: 3:10CV98-RV/MD

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER

On November 16, 2010, following a lengthy hearing, the Magistrate Judge

assigned to this case entered an order on several pending discovery motions (doc.

73). Then, on November 30, 2010, in response to a motion for protective order

filed by the defendant the day before, on November 29th, the Magistrate Judge

entered an order granting that motion (doc. 81). The plaintiffs now appeal those

two orders (docs. 82 and 85, respectively).

“A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's discovery order is, in general,

limited by statute and rule to reversing that order only if it is ‘clearly erroneous or

contrary to law,’ 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Put another way,

in the absence of a legal error, the district court may reverse only if there was an

‘abuse of discretion’ by the magistrate judge.” Koch Foods of AL LLC v. General

Elec. Capital Corp., 531 F. Supp. 2d 1318, 1319 (M.D. Ala. 2008) (citing Cooter &

Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 401, 110 S. Ct. 2447, 110 L. Ed. 2d 359

(1990)). Having discerned no clear error with respect to the order at issue in the

first appeal, the order of November 16, 2010, that order is affirmed.
Page 2 of 2

As for the second order being appealed, the order of November 30, 2010,

that order is reversed because it was entered the day after the defendant’s motion

for protective order was filed, and without affording the plaintiffs an opportunity to

respond. Although the motion sought relief in anticipation of a then-upcoming

deposition, and thus the defendant asked for an “expedited consideration,” the

deposition was not scheduled until December 6, 2010, one week after the date of

the motion. The plaintiffs should have been allowed time and opportunity to

respond to the motion before it was considered and ruled on, consistent with the

local rules of this court. N.D. Fl. Loc. R. 7.1(E) (providing that in cases involving

motions of an “emergency nature” which necessitate waiving the normal time

requirements, the court may “grant an immediate hearing on any matter requiring

such expedited procedure”).

For these reasons, the order that is the subject of the plaintiff’s first appeal

(doc. 73) is AFFIRMED. The second order appealed from (doc. 81) is REVERSED

and remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further consideration and proceedings

consistent with this order.

 

 DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of December, 2010.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge

Case No.: 3:10CV98-RV/MD
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DAVID MOULTRIE,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No.: 3:10cv257/RV/EMT

KENNETH S. TUCKER,

Respondent.

____________________________/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated April 3, 2012 (doc. 26). 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). I have made a de novo determination of all timely

filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed objections thereto

(doc. 31), 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. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 8) is DENIED.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of May, 2012.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00257-RV-EMT Document 32 Filed 05/15/12 Page 1 of 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESUS ROJAS

- AMBRIZ, AKA Jesus Ambriz Rojas,

Petitioner,

v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 72825

Agency No. A098

- 388

- 328

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 14, 2020 * *

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Jesus Rojas

- Ambriz , a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circu it Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUL 22 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual

findings. Garcia

-

Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014)

. We deny

the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Rojas

- Ambriz fai ls to challenge the agency’s

dispositive determination that he failed to establish it is more likely than not he

would be persecuted in Mexico

. See Lopez

- Vasquez v. Holder , 706 F.3d 1072,

1079

- 80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not speci fically raised and argued in a party’s

opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to his

withholding of removal claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denia l of CAT relief because

Rojas

- Ambriz failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico

. See

Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009) ; see also Delgado

- Ortiz v.

Holder , 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) ( applicant failed to show

particularized threat of torture).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIE D.
FLN (Rev. 4/2004) Deficiency Order Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JAMES LIPE

vs

ACADEMY COLLECTION SERVICES,

INC

Case No. 3:10cv105-MCR/MD

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

(electronicallyfiled 6/18/2010, doc.12), was referred to the undersigned with the following

deficiencies:

The document does not have a Certificate of Service as required by Rule

5(b) and (d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, showing proper service.

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that:

The document shall remain in the electronic file, but the court will not consider it

until you have corrected the above deficiencies through the filing of a corrected

document. 

DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of June, 2010.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Opinion issued February 23, 2023

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 2 3
- 00 107
- CV

——————————— IN RE AMY ZAVESKY , Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Amy Zavesky , filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s December 9, 2022 “Order Denying [Relator’s] Motion to Strike Deemed Admissions,” a ssert ing that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that requests for a dmission, served by real party in interest , Kayla Woodling, were deemed admitted based on relator’s failure to timely respond when the requests for admission “were never properly served

. ” In her mandamus petition, relator requests2

that the Court grant her petition for writ of mandamu s and “reverse the trial court’s
O rder Denying [Relator’s] Motion to Strike Deemed Admissions .” 1 In connection with her petition for writ of mandamus, relator also filed a “Motion for Temporary Relief,” requesting that this C ourt “stay the trial of the underlying proceeding,” currently set on the trial court’s docket for March 13, 2023, “u n til such time as the issues raised” in her petition for writ of mandamus we re resolved by the Court. We deny relator ’s petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a). Any pending motions , including relator’s “ Motion for Temporary Relief, ” are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Landau, Countiss, and Guerra

.

1 The underlying case is Kayla Woodling v. Amy Zavesky , Cause No. 2 1

- CV

- 0848 , in the 212 th District Court of Galveston County, Texas, the Honorable Patricia Grady presiding.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ALISON SAPP WHITE,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10cv102/RS-EMT

BREG, INC.,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the mediation report (Doc. 89). Pursuant to N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 16.2(D), IT 

IS ORDERED:

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

2. In the event that the settlement between these parties 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 for administrative purposes, and upon the 

expiration of 60 days without activity, the clerk is directed to close the case in 

its entirety for all purposes.

ORDERED on May 18, 2011.

/s/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00102-RS-EMT Document 90 Filed 05/18/11 Page 1 of 1
# C_2009299EN.01000801.xml

| 9.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 299/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 299/8

---

Special report No 14/2009 ‘Have the management instruments applied to the market in milk and milk products achieved their main objectives?’

2009/C 299/04

The European Court of Auditors wishes to inform you that its special report No 14/2009 ‘Have the management instruments applied to the market in milk and milk products achieved their main objectives?’ has just been published.

The report can be viewed or downloaded from the website of the European Court of Auditors: http://www.eca.europa.eu

You may obtain a version of the report in hard copy or on CD-ROM by contacting:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Communication and Reports Unit |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Communication and Reports Unit

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu

or by completing an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
Case 7:07-cv-03544-KMK-LMS Document 10 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         112,631
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  377,146
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,533,276
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,044,356
<PP&E>                                       8,406,004
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,402,841
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,048,192
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,268,200
<BONDS>                                      3,829,981
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    15,405,803
<OTHER-SE>                                  (7,455,792)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,048,192
<SALES>                                      5,041,463
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,041,463
<CGS>                                        4,316,032
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,316,032
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             460,393
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,536,161)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,536,161)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,536,161)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.65)
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE v. HARRISON

No. 124 PC.

Case below: 14 N.C. App. 450.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 31 July 1972.