alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FLN (Rev. 4/2004) Deficiency Order Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

BILLIE M. SMITH

vs

FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE, INC.

Case No. 3:10cv148-MCR/EMT

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS (electronically filed docs 28,29,32,33), were

referred to the undersigned with the following deficiencies:

Your documents are not properly captioned for this court. Every paper you

file after the complaint must have the name of this court, the case style, the

case number and the title of your pleading. The body of your pleading

should state the nature of your request and what you want the court to do for

you. (See Local Rule 5.1(B)(1))

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that:

The documents shall remain in the electronic file, but no further pleadings will be

accepted unless they comply with NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA local rules.

DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of October, 2010.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
| Dated:            August 14,      2009 | By:    | /s/ James A. Banister                      |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|                                                                 |   | James      A. Banister,                    |
|                                                                 |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                                                 |   | (Principal      Executive Officer)         |
|                                                                 |   |                                       |
|                                                                 |   |                                       |
| Dated:           August 14,      2009       | By:    | /s/ Rebecca D.Hershinger                   |
|                                                                 |   | Rebecca      D. Hershinger,                |
|                                                                 |   | Chief      Financial Officer               |
|                                                                 |   | (Principal      Financial Officer and      |
|                                                                 |   | Principal      AccountingOfficer)          |

----
Page 1 of 3

Case No. 4:09cv327-RH/WCS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DARRELL TRAVIS,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:09cv327-RH/WCS

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. 20, and 

the objections, ECF No. 23. The objections include nothing of substance but 

instead incorporate by reference papers that were filed before entry of the report 

and recommendation. The objections and thus are insufficient to preserve any 

issues. But this makes no difference; I would reach the same result on de novo

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

opinion.

Case 4:09-cv-00327-RH-WCS Document 24 Filed 02/21/12 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No. 4:09cv327-RH/WCS

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 

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. 

Case 4:09-cv-00327-RH-WCS Document 24 Filed 02/21/12 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No. 4:09cv327-RH/WCS

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 February 19, 2012.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-00327-RH-WCS Document 24 Filed 02/21/12 Page 3 of 3
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Report”) of Oilsands Quest Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended April 30, 2008, the undersigned Garth Wong, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of            the undersigned’s knowledge and belief:

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

March 18, 2009

 

 

| /s/ Garth Wong                      |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
| Garth Wong, Chief Financial Officer |
# C_2010027EN.01000501.xml

| 3.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/5

---

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

1

1,00 % on 1 February 2010

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

2 February 2010

2010/C 27/05

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3937 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 126,20 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4454 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87375 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,1229 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4733 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1435 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,998 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 270,25 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7087 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9917 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,0915 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0720 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5815 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4768 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,8263 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9706 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9641 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 616,23 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,4002 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,5147 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3180 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 037,03 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7602 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 64,638 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 42,0475 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,187 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5703 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,9543 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 64,4000 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3937

JPY

Japanese yen

126,20

DKK

Danish krone

7,4454

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87375

SEK

Swedish krona

10,1229

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4733

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1435

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,998

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

270,25

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7087

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9917

RON

Romanian leu

4,0915

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0720

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5815

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4768

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,8263

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9706

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9641

KRW

South Korean won

1 616,23

ZAR

South African rand

10,4002

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,5147

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3180

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 037,03

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7602

PHP

Philippine peso

64,638

RUB

Russian rouble

42,0475

THB

Thai baht

46,187

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5703

MXN

Mexican peso

17,9543

INR

Indian rupee

64,4000

---

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

1

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

2

Source:

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6353

HAYWOOD WILLIAMS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY; UNITED

STATES MARSHALS SERVICE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-332-2)

Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 6, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Haywood Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Haywood Williams, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Williams v. Office of the United States Attorney, No. CA-96-332-2

(E.D. Va. Feb. 11, 2000). 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
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-30185

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PATRICIO HOMERO SAENZ, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 93-CR-20046

- - - - - - - - - -

December 10, 1996

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Patricio Saenz appeals from his sentence on remand. In his

first direct appeal, we affirmed Saenz’s conviction for

conspiracy to import, and to possess with intent to distribute,

in excess of 1000 kilograms of marijuana and in excess of 5

kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). 

United States v. Lopez et al., No. 94-40723 (5th Cir. Nov. 21,

1995). We remanded the case, however, for resentencing because
No. 96-30185

- 2 -

the district court had erroneously included 650 pounds of

marijuana in calculating Saenz’s base offense level. Id. On

remand, the district court reduced the marijuana attributable to

Saenz by 650 pounds and found that the same offense level was

applicable based on the remaining 1028 kilograms attributable to

Saenz. The district court again sentenced Saenz to the 121

months’ imprisonment, as it had sentenced him during his initial

sentencing.

We need not address the various issues Saenz attempts to

raise on appeal concerning aspects of Saenz’s resentencing beyond

the 650-pound marijuana reduction. On an appeal following remand, the only

issue for consideration is whether the court below reached its final decree in due pursuance of this

court's previous opinion and mandate. Burroughs v. FFP Operating Partners, L.P., 70 F.3d 31,

33 (5th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Fiallo-Jacome, 874 F.2d 1479, 1482 (11th Cir. 1989)

(quoting with approval, Martin v. Atl. Coast Line R.R., 289 F.2d 414, 416 (5th Cir. 1961)

(Wisdom, J.)). The district court complied with this court’s opinion

and mandate and did not err when it resentenced Saenz.

AFFIRMED.
Page 1 of 2

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

LIFTON ROBINSON, JR,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 5:10cv193/RS-AK

WALTER A MCNEIL,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

O R D E R

Before me are the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(Doc. 1) and Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (Doc. 3).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit (Doc. 3) is granted.

2. The Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) and

Respondent will be required to file an answer addressing the allegations in the

Petition. § 2254 Rule 5(b). "In addition, [the answer] must state whether any

claim in the petition is barred by a failure to exhaust state remedies, a procedural

bar, non-retroactivity, or a statute of limitations." Id. Respondent may respond to

the merits without waiving the exhaustion requirement. See § 2254(b)(2) and §

2254(b)(3). Respondent shall include references to the record (included with the

answer pursuant to § 2254 Rule 5(d)) and citations to relevant legal authority. 

The response shall be styled as an answer unless a motion to dismiss the

entire petition is appropriate. If a motion to dismiss is filed, Respondent need not

also file an answer unless directed by the Court. If an answer is filed raising a
Page 2 of 2

procedural defense to any ground for relief, Respondent may await a ruling before

responding on the merits to that particular ground. Petitioner may file a reply to

any of Respondent's arguments within the time set by this order, but is not

required to do so. § 2254 Rule 5(e). The Court will review the record after the

answer and Petitioner’s reply (if any) are filed. If it does not appear that a hearing

or additional argument is warranted, then the undersigned will enter a report and

recommendation for disposition of the § 2254 petition. If an evidentiary hearing

is warranted and permitted, counsel will be appointed. § 2254 Rule 8. 1

3. The clerk shall serve a copy of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), 

along with a copy of this Order, to Respondent and the Attorney General of the

State of Florida via certified mail, return receipt requested. 

4. Respondent shall file an answer or other pleading on or before October 25, 2010. 

If voluminous exhibits or records (such as transcripts) are submitted in support of 

the answer, paper copies shall be provided to the court. 

5. Petitioner shall have until November 24, 2010, to file a reply, if desired.

ORDERED on July 27, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Section 2254(e)(2) generally bars the court from granting an evidentiary hearing if the 1

Petitioner failed to properly develop the facts in support of his claim in state court. Schriro v.

Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 473-74 n.1 (2007). Even where not barred by the statute, the Court has

the discretion to deny a hearing if the record refutes the allegations or otherwise precludes relief. 

Id. (citations omitted). 

Case No: 5:10-cv-00193-RS -AK
#### People’s Coat, Apron and Towel Supply Company, Respondent, *v.*Harry Light et al., Appellants.

*People’s Coat, Apron & Towel Supply Co.*v. *Light,*171 App. Div. 671', affirmed.

(Submitted November 15, 1918;

decided December 3, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment, entered April 15, 1916, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term and directing judgment in favor of plaintiff. The action was brought to restrain the defendants, one of whom was formerly in plaintiff’s employ, from impairing and inter*728fering with plaintiff’s business, from soliciting the trade of plaintiff’s customers previously served by the defendant so employed, and from making use of or disclosing the knowledge and information contained in plaintiff’s original list of their names and addresses. The complaint alleged that Light was for some three years in plaintiff’s service, where, as driver of its wagon delivering laundered coats and aprons to individuals and collecting payment for the use thereof, he acquired knowledge of, and access to, plaintiff’s customers. Discharged by plaintiff, Light after a brief interval entered the service of defendant Cohen, who by his inducement, under the name of :the Mutual Coat and Apron Supply Company, began a business similar to that of the plaintiff. Light, using Ms knowledge of plaintiff’s customers acquired in its service, and by virtue of his former representation of plaintiff, went to them and induced them to substitute Cohen’s outfitting for that of the plaintiff, and thereby secured their business for Cohen and deprived plaintiff of it.

*Meyer D. Siegel*for appellants.

*Alfred B. Nathan*and *Sidney J. Loeb*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, McLaughlin and Crane, JJ.
# C_2010072EN.01S00301.xml

| 20.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/s3

---

NOTICE

On 20 March 2010, in Official Journal of the European Union C 72 A, the ‘Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Second supplement to the 28th complete edition’ will be published.

Official Journal of the European Union

Subscribers to the Official Journal may obtain the same number of copies and language versions of this Official Journal as those to which they subscribe free of charge. They are requested to return the attached order form, duly completed and bearing their subscription registration number (code appearing on the left of each label and beginning with: O/...). This Official Journal will remain available free of charge for one year from the date of its publication.

Non-subscribers can order this Official Journal against payment from one of our sales offices (see http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

This Official Journal — like all Official Journals (L, C, CA, CE) — can be consulted free of charge online at http://eur-lex.europa.eu

Image

---
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5167 

To provide for the termination of residential or motor vehicle leases and 

telephone service contracts for Foreign Service officers, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 5, 2018 

Mr. MCCAUL (for himself and Mr. CASTRO of Texas) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for the termination of residential or motor vehicle 

leases and telephone service contracts for Foreign Service 

officers, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Foreign Service Officer 

5 Civil Relief Act of 2018’’. 


amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5167 IH

1 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF RESIDENTIAL OR MOTOR VEHI2 CLE LEASES AND TELEPHONE SERVICE CON3 TRACTS FOR CERTAIN FOREIGN SERVICE OF4 FICERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 9 of title I of the Foreign 

6 Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4081 et seq.) is amended 

7 by adding at the end the following new section: 

8 ‘‘SEC. 907. TERMINATION OF RESIDENTIAL OR MOTOR VE9 HICLE LEASES AND TELEPHONE SERVICE 

10 CONTRACTS. 

11 ‘‘The terms governing the termination of residential 

12 or motor vehicle leases and telephone service contracts de13 scribed in sections 305 and 305A, respectively of the 

14 Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. 3955 and 

15 3956) with respect to servicemembers who receive military 

16 orders described in such Act shall apply in the same man17 ner and to the same extent to members of the Service who 

18 are posted abroad at a Foreign Service post in accordance 

19 with this Act.’’. 

20 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

21 in section 2 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 is amended 

22 by inserting after the item relating to section 906 the fol23 lowing new item: 

‘‘Sec. 907. Termination of residential or motor vehicle leases and telephone 

service contracts.’’. 

Æ 


amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with BILLS
| (1)   | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Jumpkicks, Inc. for the quarter ended      July 31, 2008 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 on Form 10-Q for the quarter      ended July 31, 2008, fairly presents in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of Jumpkicks,      Inc.. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/Richard Douglas                                                         |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                            |
| Name:  | Richard      Douglas                                                            |
|   |                                                                            |
| Title: | Principal      Executive Officer, Principal      Financial Officer and Director |
|   |                                                                            |
| Date:  | September      15, 2008                                                         |