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

MONTEMUS JENKINS, II,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00124-MP -GRJ

MICHAEL J ASTRUE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 13, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, which recommends granting Doc. 12, the Defendant's Motion to Remand. The

time for filing objections has passed, and none have been filed. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and

incorporated herein. The motion to remand is granted, with the instructions found

in the Report and Recommendation.

2. Pursuant to Bergen v. Commissioner, 454 F.3d 1273, 1277-78 (11th Cir. 2006),

proceedings on attorney fees under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)

are stayed until the matter is fully adjudicated upon remand. The Plaintiff shall

file a motion to award fees under 406(b) within 30 days after counsel receives

notice from the Defendant Commissioner as to Plaintiff’s past due benefits.

3. This stay relates only to attorney fee proceedings under § 406(b) of the Social

Security Act, not to attorney fee proceedings under the Equal Access to Justice

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, the latter of which may be adjudicated at this time. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of October, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1


      NOTICE REGARDING CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63
                      OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

                             as adopted pursuant to

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         I, Han Ming, the chief executive officer of AP Henderson Group ("the
Company")., hereby state that as a result of the Company's inability to obtain
the books and records of former foreign subsidiaries, Hyundai MultCAV, Ltd and
the "Jingbo Assets" as defined in this Annual Report, I cannot certify to the
income (loss) on discontinued operations or gain (loss) on the disposal of each
of these foreign subsidiaries through the rescission of their respective merger
agreements in 2004, and I cannot certify to the statements of income, retained
earnings and cash flows years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003. Accordingly I
can express no opinion on whether the Annual Report for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2004, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. I can certify that the information contained in the Form 10-K financial
statements in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
balance sheet of AP Henderson Group.


                                                 /s/ Han Ming
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Han Ming
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 Date:  June 21, 2005

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to AP Henderson
Group and will be retained by AP Henderson Group. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CRAIG K. STATEN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv108/WS/EMT

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER

This cause was referred by the clerk upon Plaintiff’s “Statement to Show Cause” (Doc. 12),

filed in response to the court’s July 30, 2010, order directing Plaintiff to show cause why this action

should not be dismissed for his failure to pay the filing fee as directed (Doc. 11). In light of

Plaintiff’s assertion in his response that he is indigent, the court will allow Plaintiff one final

opportunity to demonstrate his eligibility to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff should complete

the forms provided to him in their entirety, being sure to include all liabilities, as well as all assets,

in order that the court may fairly determine his household’s financial status. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The clerk shall send Plaintiff a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, including an

affidavit of financial status, which is approved for use by non-prisoners in this District. This case

number should be written on the forms.

2. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of docketing of this order, Plaintiff shall

(1) pay the filing fee of $350.00, or (2) submit a fully completed motion to proceed in forma

pauperis and affidavit of financial status.

3. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order as instructed may result in a

recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court.
Page 2 of 2

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of August 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

 ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No.: 3:04cv372/MCR/EMT
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.                  

###### Election Assistance Commission

# AGENCY:

United States Election Assistance Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice of Public Meeting for EAC Standards Board.

# Date And Time:

Tuesday, February 20, 2007, 6:30 p.m.-9 p.m. Wednesday, 21, 2007, 8:30 a.m.-6 p.m. Thursday, 22, 2007, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Friday, 23, 2007, 8:30 a.m.-11 a.m.

# Place:

Ritz-Carleton Atlanta, 191 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, GA 30303, (404) 659-0400.

# Purpose:

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Standards Board, as required by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), will meet and receive updates on EAC projects and activities and discuss other relevant matters pertaining to the administration of federal elections. The Board will receive updates on the following subject: EAC's voting system certification and laboratory accreditation  program and activities of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) regarding the voluntary voting system guidelines. The business portion of the meeting will include an election for three vacancies on the Executive Board and the presentation of redrafted bylaws.

This meeting will be open to the public.

# Person to Contact for Information:

Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (202) 566-3100.

Thomas R. Wilkey,

Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

[FR Doc. 07-547 Filed 2-2-07; 3:32 pm]

BILLING CODE 6820-KF-M
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

APRIL PRESTON,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:10cv210/RS/EMT

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration,

Defendant.

_______________________________ /

O R D E R

Plaintiff has filed a complaint for judicial review of an adverse administrative decision of

the Defendant and an amended motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (see Docs. 1, 5). It

affirmatively appears that leave to proceed in forma pauperis should be granted. Before service can

be directed, however, Plaintiff must submit three (3) copies of her complaint for service on the

Commissioner of Social Security, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida,

and the Attorney General of the United States.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s amended motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5) is

GRANTED and this case may be filed and the pleadings may be served without the prepayment of

costs as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

2. Within twenty (20) days of the date of docketing of this order, Plaintiff shall provide

three (3) services copies of her complaint.

3. Once the copies are received, the clerk of court is directed to send three certified

copies of this order, the service copies of the complaint, and the prepared USM 285 forms to the

United States Marshal.

4. The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the complaint and summons upon
Page 2 of 2

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security and the Attorney General of the United States

by certified mail, and the office of the United States Attorney for this District by regular U.S. mail

or hand-delivery. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States.

5. After a response to the complaint has been filed by Defendant, Plaintiff shall be

required to mail to the attorney for Defendant a copy of every pleading or other paper, including

letters, submitted for consideration by the court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to

be filed with the clerk of court a certificate stating the date a correct copy of the paper was mailed

to each Defendant or to the attorney representing each Defendant. Any paper submitted for filing

after a response to the complaint has been filed by Defendant which does not contain a certificate

of service shall be returned by the clerk and disregarded by the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of August 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No: 5:10cv210/RS/EMT
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-81,202-02

EX PARTE JOEL RAMIREZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. CR20713-B IN THE 35 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM BROWN COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of tampering with

or fabricating physical evidence and sentenced to forty-five years’ imprisonment. The Eleventh

Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Ramirez v. State, No. 11-11-00077-CR (Tex. App.—Feb.

7, 2013)(not designated for publication). 

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel

failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed. We remanded this
2

application to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. Based on that affidavit, the trial court

has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed to timely notify

Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed. The trial court recommends that relief be granted. 

Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 

We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition

for discretionary review of the judgment of the Eleventh Court of Appeals in Cause No. 11-11-

00077-CR that affirmed his conviction in Cause No. CR20713 from the 35 District Court of Brown th

County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with this Court within 30 days of

the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Delivered: July 29, 2015

Do not publish
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

RANDALL LAMONT ROLLE,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00153-MP-AK

ROSEMARY BARKETT, SUSAN H BLACK, PHILIP WAYNE EDWARDS, STEPHAN P

MICKLE, WILLIAM C SHERRILL, JR,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Motion to Set Aside Order, Doc. 8, and Clerk’s

Judgment, Doc. 9, and Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Randall Lamont Rolle,

Doc. 14. Plaintiff moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to set aside the order and

judgment dismissing this action, and attaches a proposed amended complaint. There is no

circumstance described in Rule 60(b) that applies to invalidate the judgment in this case, and

there is no reason to set aside the order dismissing the case. The Court declines to grant

Plaintiff’s requested relief, and this Motion, Doc. 14, is DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of June, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
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.                  

###### Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

# Time and Date:

10 a.m., Tuesday, October 23, 2007.

# Place:

The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, 9th Floor, 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

# Status:

Open.

# Matters to be Considered:

                        The Commission will hear oral argument in the matters                         *Secretary of Labor*                         v.                         *Emerald Coal Resources, LP*, Docket No. PENN 2007-251-E, and                         *Secretary of Labor*                         v.                         *Cumberland Coal Resources, LP*, Docket No. PENN 2007-252-E. (Issues include whether the Administrative Law Judge erred in upholding the Secretary's decision to require that the operators' Emergency Response Plans (ERPs) contain provisions mandating that the operators provide purchase orders for rescue chambers.)                    

Any person attending this oral argument who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

# Contact Person for More Info:

                        Jean Ellen (202) 434-9950/(202) 708-9300                               ( print page 59314)                            for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.                    

Jean H. Ellen,

Chief Docket Clerk.

[FR Doc. 07-5191  Filed 10-17-07; 12:09 pm]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AQUAPRO CORPORATION FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         202,894
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  108,009
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,740,124
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,089,541
<PP&E>                                       7,507,022
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,867,269
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,716,973
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,799,597
<BONDS>                                      4,102,980
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,837,408
<COMMON>                                    10,588,311
<OTHER-SE>                                  (5,611,323)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,716,973
<SALES>                                      1,203,468
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,212,468
<CGS>                                        1,188,159
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,188,159
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             212,685
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,487,525)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,487,525)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,487,525)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.51)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

PENSACOLA MOTOR SALES,

a Florida corporation, d/b/a

BOB TYLER TOYOTA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:09cv571/RS-MD

EASTERN SHORE TOYOTA, LLC, an

Alabama Limited Liability Company;

DAPHNE AUTOMOTIVE, LLC, an

Alabama Limited Liability Company;

SHAWN ESFAHANI, Individually;

and DAPHNE ENTERPRISES, INC.,

an Alabama corporation,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is Plaintiff’s Objection To The Report And Recommendation Denying

Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel, Or In The Alternative Motion For Reconsideration Of the

Order (Doc. 74). Plaintiff’s counsel incorrectly cites the de novo standard of review of

28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B&C). The referral to the Magistrate Judge was in fact pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A).

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection To The Report And Recommendation

Denying Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel, Or In The Alternative Motion For Reconsideration

Of the Order (Doc. 74) is denied because it has not been shown that the Magistrate

Judge’s Order (Doc. 73) is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
ORDERED on July 29, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000             JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1999             DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-2000             JAN-03-1999
<CASH>                                          76,671                  13,307
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,476                  31,212
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,988                   1,270
<INVENTORY>                                     31,696                  28,583
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               171,225                  78,038
<PP&E>                                          45,286                  26,286
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,354                   5,838
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 223,038                 131,985
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,659                  42,828
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       120,785                  65,027
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,994                   6,043
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   223,038                 131,985
<SALES>                                        292,547                 100,231
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               292,547                 100,231
<CGS>                                          210,305                  66,056
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  263,822                 107,232
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 646                     571
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,571                 (4,671)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,306                 (1,705)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,265                 (2,966)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,265                 (2,966)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.02                   (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .98                   (.17)


</TABLE>
Order entered September 17, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00126-CV

WILLIAM J. KANEN, Appellant

V.

DEWOLFF, BOBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-01228-D

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s September 9, 2020 unopposed motion for an 

extension of time to file his brief on the merits. Appellant asks for an extension of 

fourteen days after the requested and ordered supplemental clerk’s record and 

sealed supplemental clerk’s record are filed. These records have now been filed. 

Accordingly, we GRANT appellant’s motion and extend the time to October 1, 

2020.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE