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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

TONY CHOY YOUNG and 

SHELLY DAWN CARTER, 

husband and wife,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00266-SPM-GRJ

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

____________________________ /

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Amended Motion To Extend

Expert Witness Disclosures. (Doc. 17.) This Court previously entered an Order

enlarging the deadline for Plaintiffs to provide their Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures of expert

witnesses until July 20, 2011 and for Defendant to do the same by August 5, 2011. 

(Doc. 16.) Plaintiffs represent they inadvertently requested an enlargement of

Defendant’s deadline to August 5, 2011 instead of September 5, 2011. Plaintiffs

represent that Defendant’s counsel was contacted pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(B) and

that Defendant does not object to the requested relief.

Upon due consideration, Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Amended Motion To Extend

Expert Witness Disclosures (Doc. 17) is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve its Rule

26(a)(2) expert witness disclosures by September 5, 2011.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28 day of March, 2011. 

th

s/ Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge
```
**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  quarterly  report on Form 10-Q of Southwest  Iowa
Renewable Energy, LLC (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2008, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Cindy Patterson,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

                                         /s/ Cindy Patterson
                                         ---------------------------------
                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                         Dated: February 17, 2009
```
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

PROPHET PAULCIN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:09cv573/RV/EMT

WALTER A. McNEIL, et al.,

 Defendants.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal of the instant civil

rights case, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, without prejudice (Doc. 14).

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) provides that an action may be dismissed without an order of the court

by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before the adverse party serves an answer or files a motion

for summary judgment. Because Defendants have not yet been served in the instant case, it is clear

that Plaintiff is automatically entitled to a voluntary dismissal at this time.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal (Doc. 14) be GRANTED and this case be

DISMISSED without prejudice.
Page 2 of 2

At Pensacola, Florida, this 23 day of July 2010. rd

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed within

fourteen (14) 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. A copy of objections shall be

served upon the magistrate judge and 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 (11th Cir. 1988).

Case No.: 3:09cv573/RV/EMT
AUSTIN 

'-'overruled b 

County Attorney 

Henderson County 

Athens, 'Texas 

Dear Sir: 

0 ie tnmte 

;owned tg the 

fice the fc&mi~ 

ho is also an agent 

.be perr&ted to sell 

ict, of which he is 

that he could not issue a tire iasurance policy on the courthouse of said county without violating the provisions of 

Articls 373 of the Penal Code, and cited the case of Rigby 

VS. Stat+, 27 Civ. Rep. 57, to sustain his CtOUClUSiOn. 

This opfnion has been followed by subsequent Attorneys General. 
Hon. Harry Boyd, Fags #2. 

Trustees of both aonmon and independent sahool dlstriats have repeatedly been held by our aourts to be "aounti 

orflaers.* Keyker V. Widii.on, 291 8. W; 967, and the authorlties there alted. 

You are advised it'iti our opinion that-ybur-question 

should~be answered in the,negatlv?, and it-la so answered; 

Yours very truly 

ATTORhTEPCKNERAI.OFTSKAS 

BWB:pbp 

Assisttint
# C_2013011EN.01008702.xml

| 15.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/87 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/87

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain technical and control measures in the Skagerrak and amending Regulations (EC) No 850/98 and (EC) No 1342/2008’

COM(2012) 471 final — 2012/0232 (COD)

2013/C 11/24

On 11 September 2012, the European Parliament, and, on 12 September 2012, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 43 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain technical and control measures in the Skagerrak and amending Regulation (EC) No 850/98 and Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain technical and control measures in the Skagerrak and amending Regulation (EC) No 850/98 and Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008

COM(2012) 471 final — 2012/0232 (COD).

Since the Committee endorses the contents of the proposal, it decided at its 484th plenary session of 14 and 15 November 2012 (meeting of 14 November 2012), by 157 votes to 2 with 9 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 14 November 2012.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Staffan NILSSON

---
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:10cv14-MCR/MD

0.37 OF AN ACRE OF LAND, MORE

OR LESS, SITUATE IN ESCAMBIA

COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER FOR DELIVERY OF POSSESSION

Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion for Order of Possession (doc. 26)

in this action to condemn certain property located in Escambia County, Florida. The

plaintiff has filed an amended complaint (doc. 6) and a declaration of taking (doc. 6-1).

The declaration of taking appropriately sets forth the authority under which, and the public

use for which, the land is taken; a sufficient description of the land; a statement that the

plaintiff will take the property in fee simple subject to existing easements for public roads

and highways, public utilities, railroads, and pipelines; a plan showing the land taken; and

the amount of money estimated as just compensation for the land. See 40 U.S.C.

§ 3114(a) (1) - (5). The plaintiff has deposited with the court the amount of the estimated

compensation for the property, as stated in the declaration. (Doc. 29). See 40 U.S.C.

§ 3114(b). Additionally, the plaintiff represents that the property is no longer occupied and

that all buildings have been removed from the property. 
Page 2 of 2

It appears from this record that Plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property

described in the complaint and declaration of taking, and the court will grant the motion.

It is hereby ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Order of Possession (doc. 26) is GRANTED, as follows:

a. Defendants and all persons in possession or control of the property

described in the complaint and declaration of taking (docs. 6 & 6-1) shall immediately

surrender possession of the described property being condemned to Plaintiff; 

b. Notice of this order shall be served forthwith upon all persons in

possession or control of the property. 

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of March, 2010.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

 

Case No. 3:10cv14-MCR/MD
TYPE:  EX-23.3

GLOBAL BOULEVARD INTERNATIONAL, INC.

EXHIBIT #23.3 Consent of Experts and Counsel


G. BRAD BECKSTEAD
---------------------------
Certified Public Accountant


                                                   330 E. Warm Springs
                                                   Las Vegas, NV 89119
                                                          702.528.1984


January 24, 2001


To Whom It May Concern:

The firm of G. Brad Beckstead, CPA, consents to the inclusion of my report
of January 24, 2001, on the Financial Statements of Global Boulevard
International, Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2000, in any filings
which are necessary now or in the near future to be filed with the US
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Signed,


/s/ G. Brad Beckstead
---------------------

<PAGE>



                                    34
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 11

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


LILLY INDUSTRIES, INC.
(In thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    Three Months Ended           Six Months Ended
 
                                                   May 31      May 31  May 31           May 31
                                                    1997             1996         1997        1996
                                                 ----------       -----------    --------   ------

Primary:
<S>                                                <C>               <C>          <C>         <C>   
 Average shares outstanding                        22,865            22,600       22,800      22,600

 Net income                                       $ 7,401           $   616      $12,111     $ 4,102
 Net income per common share                      $  0.32           $  0.03      $  0.53     $  0.18
                                                  =======           =======      =======     =======

Average shares outstanding                         22,865            22,600       22,800      22,600
Dilutive stock options based
 on treasury stock method
 using average market
 price                                                535               400          600         400
                                                  -------           -------      -------     -------
                                                   23,400            23,000       23,400      23,000

 Net income                                       $ 7,401           $   616      $12,111     $ 4,102
 Net income per common
  and common equivalent
  share                                           $  0.32           $  0.03      $  0.52     $  0.18
                                                  =======           =======      =======     =======

Fully diluted:
 Average shares outstanding                        22,865            22,600       22,800      22,600
 Dilutive stock options based
  on the treasury stock
  method using the higher
  of quarter end or average
  market price                                        535               400          600         400
                                                  -------           -------      -------     -------
                                                   23,400            23,000       23,400      23,000

 Net income                                       $ 7,401           $   616      $12,111     $ 4,102
 Net income per common
  and common equivalent
  share                                           $  0.32           $  0.03      $  0.52     $  0.18
                                                  =======           =======      =======     =======
</TABLE>












                                  Page 12 of 13
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

XAVIER TYRONE MOORE,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv236/MCR/EMT

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

__________________________/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated September 9, 2010. (Doc. 5). Petitioner has been furnished a

copy of the Report and Recommendation and has 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 any timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, 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. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to comply

with an order of the court.

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

 s/M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CEO 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 WindTamer Corporation (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Gerald E. Brock, as
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to the best of my knowledge,
that:





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





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





/s/ GERALD E. BROCKGerald
      E. BrockChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerNovember
      5, 2009





This
Certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-30043

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Cory Shane Disotell, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:19-CR-126-1

Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Cory Shane Disotell appeals the 262-month sentence he received 

following his guilty plea conviction for transporting a minor with the intent 

to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). He 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 6, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-30043 Document: 00515590969 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/06/2020
No. 20-30043

2

argues that the district court erred in denying him a two-point reduction for 

acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a).

“While the district court’s findings under the sentencing guidelines 

are generally reviewed for clear error,” a determination of whether a 

defendant is entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under § 

3E1.1 is reviewed “with even greater deference.” United States v. Buchanan, 

485 F.3d 274, 287 (5th Cir. 2007). Under this standard, we will affirm the 

district court’s decision to deny a defendant a reduction for acceptance of 

responsibility unless that decision is “without foundation.” United States 

v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. 

Anderson, 174 F.3d 515, 525 (5th Cir. 1999)). 

Disotell has not shown that the district court’s refusal to award him a

two-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction was without foundation 

when both his presentencing letter to the court and allocution at sentencing 

attempted to minimize his role in the offense, shifted blame to the underage 

victim of his crime, and sought to mitigate his own conduct by falsely denying 

relevant underlying facts. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.3; Juarez-Duarte, 513

F.3d at 211; see also United States v. Angeles-Mendoza, 407 F.3d 742, 753 (5th 

Cir. 2005); United States v. Medina-Anicacio, 325 F.3d 638, 647-48 (5th Cir. 

2003). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 20-30043 Document: 00515590969 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/06/2020
#### HERMAN *L.*GREENE v. CECIL HARMON.

(Filed 16 October 1963)

Trial § S3—

Tbe court is required to charge the jury on the applicable statutory law ■as well as the common law, and the court’s failure to do so must be held for prejudicial error. G.S. 1-180.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Sink,*Emergency Judge, Regular June Civil Session 1963 of Watauga.

This is a civil action instituted on 8 October 1962 by the plaintiff to recover for damages to his -automobile, resulting from a collision between tire plaintiff’s automobile and the Voilfcswagen of the defendant on 1 August 1962, ¡about 7:15 a.m., on Highway 321 near ■the “Y” intersection of old Plighway 421, near Stephens’ Service Station in Watauga County, North Carolina.

The defendant filed a cross-action and counterclaim for personal injuries and damages to his motor vehicle which he alleges he sustained as a result of said collision.

The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant. Judgment was entered on the verdict and the plaintiff appeals, assigning error.

*Holshouser & Holshouser for plaintiff appellant.*

*Stacy E. Eggers, Jr. and Hayes & Hayes for defendant appellee.*

Per Curiam.

The appellant assigns as error the failure of the ■court below in its charge to the jury to apply -the law to. the evidence on the substantial features of the case, in that the court failed to charge the jury as to the applicable statutory law with respect to the right of way of the parties ¡at an intersection or as to what would constitute negligence with respect to speed where safety signs had *345been erected by proper officials. We think this assignment of error was well taken and must be upheld.

An examination of the charge reveals that the court instructed the jury with reispect to negligence according to the common law rule of the -prudent man only.

In *Pittman v. Swanson,*255 N.C. 681, 122 S.E. 2d 814, it is said: “Our decisions are as one in holding that the positive duty of the judge, as required by G.S. 1-180, to declare and explain the law arising upon the evidence in the case means that he shall declare and explain the statutory law as well as the common law arising thereon. *Barnes v. Teer,*219 N.C. 823, 15 S.E. 2d 379; *Kolman v. Silbert,*219 N.C. 134, 12 S.E. 2d 915; *Spencer v. Brown,*214 N.C. 114, 198 S.E. 630; *Williams v. Coach Co.,*197 N.C. 12, 147 S.E. 435; *Bowen v. Schnibben,*184 N.C. 248, 114 S.E. 170.”

The appellant ig entitled to a new trial and it is so ordered.

New trial.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Otter TailAg Enterprises, LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31,2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Anthony Hicks, Chief Executive Officer and Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

2. The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

Date:  May 15, 2009

 
|   | /s/ Anthony Hicks                                   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   | Anthony Hicks                                       |
|   | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
# C_2009190EN.01000501.xml

| 13.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

12 August 2009

2009/C 190/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4170 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,77 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4445 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85965 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,2656 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5276 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,7325 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,768 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 273,60 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7010 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1813 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2218 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1267 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7201 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5633 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,9828 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,1294 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0509 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 767,31 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,5202 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,6853 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3259 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 162,71 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0027 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 68,102 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 46,0900 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,277 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6176 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,5200 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 68,5330 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4170

JPY

Japanese yen

135,77

DKK

Danish krone

7,4445

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85965

SEK

Swedish krona

10,2656

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5276

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,7325

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,768

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

273,60

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7010

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1813

RON

Romanian leu

4,2218

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1267

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7201

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5633

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,9828

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,1294

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0509

KRW

South Korean won

1 767,31

ZAR

South African rand

11,5202

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,6853

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3259

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 162,71

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0027

PHP

Philippine peso

68,102

RUB

Russian rouble

46,0900

THB

Thai baht

48,277

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6176

MXN

Mexican peso

18,5200

INR

Indian rupee

68,5330

---

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

1

Source

---