alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 3

Case No. 5:10cv90-RH/EMT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

RICHARD JASON COX,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 5:10cv90-RH/EMT

KENNETH S. TUCKER,

Respondent.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE PETITION AND

DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

This petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is before 

the court on the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, ECF No. 26, and 

the objections, ECF No. 28. I have reviewed de novo the issues raised by the 

objections. The report and recommendation is correct and is adopted as the court’s 

opinion.

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires a district court to 

“issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to 

the applicant.” Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may 

issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

Case 5:10-cv-00090-RH-EMT Document 31 Filed 07/14/12 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No. 5:10cv90-RH/EMT

constitutional right.” See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-38 (2003); 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 

893 n.4 (1983); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13 (2000) (setting 

out the standards applicable to a § 2254 petition on the merits). As the Court said 

in Slack:

 To obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a 

demonstration that, under Barefoot, includes showing that reasonable 

jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition 

should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues 

presented were “ ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

further.’ ” 

Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84 (quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n.4). Further, in 

order to obtain a certificate of appealability when dismissal is based on procedural 

grounds, a petitioner must show, “at least, that jurists of reason would find it 

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 

was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. at 484. 

The petitioner has not made the required showing. 

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED.

Case 5:10-cv-00090-RH-EMT Document 31 Filed 07/14/12 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No. 5:10cv90-RH/EMT

2. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The petition is DENIED with 

prejudice.” 

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

4. The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on July 14, 2012.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-00090-RH-EMT Document 31 Filed 07/14/12 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We have issued our report dated March 31, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule included in
the Annual Report of EF Johnson Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said
report in the Registration Statements of EF Johnson Technologies, Inc. on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-151999, effective June 27, 2008; and File
No. 333-125257, effective May 26, 2005) and Forms S-8 (File No. 333-129717, effective November 15, 2005; File
No. 333-48834, effective October 27, 2000; File No. 333-48836, effective October 27, 2000; File No. 333-48840, effective
October 27, 2000; File No. 333-48880, effective October 27, 2000; and File No. 333-30673, effective July 2, 1997).

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP


Dallas,
Texas
March 31, 2010

---



QuickLinks
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, November 6, 2007, 1 p.m. to November 6, 2007, 4 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 16, 2007, 72 FR 58676-58679.                

The meeting will be held November 13, 2007, 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: October 31, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. 07-5529 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DARNELL ANTHONY JACKSON,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 5:10cv191-RH/EMT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, ECF No. 39. No objections have been filed. 

The recommendation is for dismissal of this case without prejudice based on

the petitioner’s failure to file an amended petition as required by the order entered

on July 23, 2010, ECF No. 35, and failure to respond to the order to show cause

why the case should not be dismissed on this basis, ECF No. 38. The petitioner

has had more than three months to file an amended petition but has failed to do so. 

And it is not at all clear, from the original petition, precisely what relief the

petitioner seeks, or on what basis. Under these circumstances, dismissal without

prejudice is appropriate. If the petitioner decides to pursue his claim—whatever
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 5:10cv191-RH/EMT

the claim actually is—he may file a new case. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s

opinion. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The petition is dismissed without

prejudice.” The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on October 27, 2010.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge
# C_2009305EN.01000601.xml

| 16.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5690 — Occidental Petroleum Corporation/Phibro)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 305/03

On 11 December 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 32009M5690. 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 32009M5690. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
### M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 216TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF GILLESPIE COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on August 19, 2015, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

Marisela G. Salas, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Martin Suarez and as Next Friend of

Keyla Marizel Salas Suares, Minor, Appellant

V.

Allen Keller Co. I, L.L.C. d/b/a Allen Keller Co., Appellee

No. 04

- 14

- 00622

- CV and Tr. Ct. No. 13410

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the

trial court is AFFIRMED. Costs of appeal are taxed against Appellant

Marisela G. Salas, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Martin

Suarez and as Next Friend of Keyla Marizel Salas Suarez, Minor.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on October 28, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853BILL OF COSTS



### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04

- 14

- 00622

- CV

Marisela G. Salas, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Martin Suarez and as

Next Friend of Keyla Marizel Salas Suares, Minor

v.

Allen Keller Co. I, L.L.C. d/b/a Allen Keller Co.

(NO. 13410 IN 216TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF GILLESPIE COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

REPORTER'S RECORD

SUPREME COURT CHAPTER 51

FEE

STATEWIDE EFILING FEE

INDIGENT

FILING $10.00

$250.00

$50.00

$20.00

$25.00

$100.00 E

- PAID

PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID ELLEN TAGTMEIER

MICHAEL G. SAWICKI

MICHAEL SAWICKI

MICHAEL SAWICKI

MICHAEL SAWICKI

MICHAEL SAWICKI

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

**Court costs in**  **this cause shall**  **be paid as**  **per the**  **Judgment issued by**  **this Court.** 

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this October 28, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 14, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 64082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5641]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology; American Health Information Community Consumer Empowerment 
Workgroup Meeting

ACTION:  Announcement of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 21st meeting of the American Health 
Information Community Consumer Empowerment Workgroup in accordance with 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.)

DATES: December 5, 2007, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. [Eastern].

ADDRESSES: Mary C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20201), Conference Room 4090. Please bring photo ID for entry to a 
Federal building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/consumer/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Workgroup will continue its discussion 
on how to encourage the widespread adoption of a personal health record 
that is easy-to-use, portable, longitudinal, affordable, and consumer-
centered.
    The meeting will be available via Web cast. For additional 
information, go to: http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/consumer/ce_instruct.html.

    Dated: November 2, 2007.
Judith Sparrow,
Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and 
Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology.
[FR Doc. 07-5641 Filed 11-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-24-M
Exhibit 32








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 Quarterly Report of Guide Holdings, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Quarterly Report”), we, Kim McReynolds, President and Director, and Brenda Sundwall, Secretary, Treasurer and Director, of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:








(1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.








Date:
October 29, 2010

By:
/s/Kim McReynoldsKim McReynoldsPresident and DirectorGuide Holdings, Inc.Date:
October 29, 2010

By:
/s/Brenda SundwallBrenda SundwallSecretary, Treasurer and DirectorGuide Holdings, Inc.
Order entered January 8, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01418-CV

ISAIAS GONZALEZ, Appellant

V.

NORTHFORK INVESTMENTS, LTD, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-05764-D

ORDER

We GRANT the January 6, 2015 motion of Coral Hough, Official Court Reporter for the 

County Court at Law No. 4 of Dallas County, Texas, for an extension of time to file the 

reporter’s record. The reporter’s record shall be filed by JANUARY 27, 2015.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
Law Offices of Scott A. Lucas 

60 East 42nd Street, Suite 1001 

New York, New York 10165 

(212) 573-6906 

Scott A. Lucas, Esq. (SL-6316) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Barbara Rockmore 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

---------------------------------------------------------------X 

BARBARA ROCKMORE, 07-CV-3592 (DAB) 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 -against- NOTICE OF 

 APPEARANCE 

DARRICK E. ANTELL, 

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C., 

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C., F.A.C.S., 

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., F.A.C.S. and 

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., F.A.C.S., P.C., 

 Defendants. 

------------------------------------------------------X 

To: Christina L. Feege 

 Littler Mendelson P.C. 

 885 Third Ave., 16th Fl. 

 New York, NY 10022-4834 

Please take notice that the undersigned law firm hereby appears as counsel of record for 

Plaintiff Barbara Rockmore, and demands that a copy of any pleadings and notices in this 

action be served on the undersigned. 

Dated: New York, New York 

May 14, 2007 

 Law Offices of Scott A. Lucas 

60 East 42nd Street, Suite 1001 

New York, New York 10165 

(212) 573-6906 

Scott A. Lucas, Esq. (SL-6316) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Barbara Rockmore

By /s/ 

 Scott A. Lucas (SL-6316) 

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 9 Filed 05/14/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### MAE W. DULL v. LAWRENCE PAUL DULL.

(Filed 3 November, 1965.)

Appeal by defendant from *McLaughlin, J.,*in Chambers at States-ville, North Carolina, 22 May 1965. From Davie.

On 21 April 1959 plaintiff instituted an action in the Superior Court of Davie County in which she sought support, maintenance, and subsistence for herself and the two minor children born of the marriage of plaintiff and defendant. She also prayed for custody of the minor children.

On the same day the pleadings were filed, a consent judgment was entered awarding plaintiff custody of said children and requiring defendant to pay $35.00 per week for the support of the children, beginning with 27 April 1959, and a like sum on or before the first day of each week thereafter, until the further orders of the court.

On 7 March 1962 the parties consented to the entry of a judgment reducing the payments for the support of the minor children to $50.00 on the first and fifteenth of each month thereafter, beginning with 15 December 1961, until the further orders of the court.

On 29 April 1965, defendant filed a motion to reduce the required payments on the ground that he was and had been handicapped physically for sometime and is not able to meet the payments.

Plaintiff answered the motion and requested an increase in the amount theretofore agreed upon on the ground that one of the *563children was in high school and the other was in the sixth grade and that their needs had greatly increased. Whereupon, the court below heard the matter, found as a fact that the needs of the children are in excess of the payments theretofore agreed upon; that defendant is an able-bodied man and is employed at a weekly wage of $35.00; that he has other income from other sources; that he owns property and has sufficient income and ability to earn income from which he can adequately support the two minor children. The court on 22 May 1965 entered an order increasing the allowance to $55.00 on the first and fifteenth of each month thereafter, beginning with 1 June 1965, and continuing until the further orders of the court.

Defendant appeals, assigning error;

*Robert M. Bryant for defendant appellant.*

*No counsel contra.*

PER Cubiam.

The appellant did not except to the facts found by the court below, and the findings of fact are sufficient to support the order entered below. *Goldsboro v. R. R.,*246 N.C. 101, 97 S.E. 2d 486. Where no exceptions have been taken to the findings of fact, such findings are presumed to be correct and are binding on appeal. *Goldsboro v. R. R., supra,*and cited cases.

Orders for the support of minor children are subject to modification upon a proper showing of a change of conditions. *Blankenship v. Blankenship,*256 N.C. 638, 124 S.E. 2d 857; *Griffin v. Griffin,*237 N.C. 404, 75 S.E. 2d 133; *Hardee v. Mitchell,*230 N.C. 40, 51 S.E. 2d 884.

The judgment from which this appeal was taken is

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Bureau of Industry and Security

          - 15 CFR Part 772

### CFR Correction

                    In Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 300 to 799, revised as of January 1, 2007, on page 577, in § 772.1, in the second column, the second definition of                     *Production*                     is removed.                

[FR Doc. 07-55526 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Page 1 of 3

Case No. 4:10cv213-RH/GRJ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ERIC HOBBS,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv213-RH/GRJ

SECRETARY DEPT. OF

CORRECTIONS, 

Respondent.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE PETITION AND

DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

This petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is before 

the court on the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, ECF No. 22. No 

objections have been filed. The report and recommendation is correct and is 

adopted as the court’s opinion.

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires a district court to 

“issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to 

the applicant.” Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may 

issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 
Page 2 of 3

Case No. 4:10cv213-RH/GRJ

constitutional right.” See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-38 (2003); 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 

893 n.4 (1983); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13 (2000) (setting 

out the standards applicable to a § 2254 petition on the merits). As the Court said 

in Slack:

 To obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a 

demonstration that, under Barefoot, includes showing that reasonable 

jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition 

should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues 

presented were “ ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

further.’ ” 

Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84 (quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n.4). Further, in 

order to obtain a certificate of appealability when dismissal is based on procedural 

grounds, a petitioner must show, “at least, that jurists of reason would find it 

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 

was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. at 484. 

The petitioner has not made the required showing. This order thus denies a 

certificate of appealability. Because the petitioner has not obtained—and is not 

entitled to—a certificate of appealability, any appeal will not be taken in good 

faith. I certify under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a) that an appeal will 

not be taken in good faith and that the petitioner is not otherwise entitled to 
Page 3 of 3

Case No. 4:10cv213-RH/GRJ

proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. But for the requirement to obtain a 

certificate of appealability, leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis would be 

granted. 

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED.

2. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The petition is DENIED with 

prejudice.” 

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

4. The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on July 20, 2013.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge