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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

BRENT A. ZELLERS, #702880, 

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv340-SPM/WCS

FLORIDA PRISON HEALTH

SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before me upon referral from the Clerk. In an order filed August 30,

2010, Plaintiff was directed to either file a motion for voluntary dismissal or amended

complaint by September 30, 2010. Plaintiff was specifically warned that a

recommendation would be made that this case be dismissed if he failed to comply with

that order. Doc. 6. To date, no response has been received from the Plaintiff. 

A trial court has inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to

prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to obey a

court order. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 838 and cases cited (11th Cir.), cert.
Page 2 of 2

denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989). Since Plaintiff has failed to comply with an order or to

prosecute this case, his complaint should now be dismissed without prejudice.1 

The Plaintiff shall have a 15 day period after service of this report and

recommendation in which to file objections. This will also afford Plaintiff a final

opportunity to show good cause for his failure to respond. Plaintiff may do so by a

motion for reconsideration which will be referred to me by the Clerk.

It is therefore, respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED

without prejudice.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on October 20, 2010.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14

days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections

limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

 1 Dismissal of this action does not relieve Plaintiff of the obligation to pay the full filing

fee in this case. Thus the court's order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis, in

which the agency having custody of plaintiff was instructed to forward monthly

payments from Plaintiff's prison account towards the balance due of the filing fee,

remains in effect.

Case No. 4:10cv340-SPM/WCS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-31386 Summary Calendar

MASSOOD DANESH PAJOOH, Petitioner-Appellant, versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; CARL CASTERLINE, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 98-CV-2050

-------------------- October 28, 1999 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Massood Danesh Pajooh, federal prisoner #72872-079, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his federal habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. The respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g); Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee , 119 S. Ct. 936, 943 (1999). All other outstanding motions are DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JENNIFER XU,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00187-MP -GRJ

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF RISK

MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 54, Motion Hearing Minute Entry for

Proceedings Held Before Senior Judge Maurice M Paul. A teleconference motion hearing was

held on January 6, 2011, regarding Doc. 50, Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive

Motions (opposed) filed by Board of Trustees of the University of Florida and Doc. 53, Motion

to Compel Payment for Records Produced to Plaintiff Xu in Response to Plaintiff’s First Request

for Production of Documents filed by Board of Trustees of the University of Florida.

On December 22, 2010, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which was

nine days past the December 13, 2010, deadline for filing dispositive motions. Later that day,

Defendants filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions (opposed). Later

the same day, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. At

the teleconference motion hearing, Defendants cited a scheduling error for the untimely motion. 

Plaintiff indicated their desire to proceed to trial and argued that responding to Defendant’s

Motion for Summary Judgment while preparing for trial would be burdensome. Plaintiff was not

prepared to argue Defendants’ Motion to Compel Payment and asked for time to respond in
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:09-cv-00187-MP -GRJ

writing.

The Court agreed that responding to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment while

preparing for trial would be burdensome and asked the parties to find a mutually agreeable date

that would allow Plaintiff time to respond to Defendants’ motions and prepare for trial. The

parties have done so. Accordingly it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions, Doc. 50, is

GRANTED.

2. The Motion to Strike Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 51, is

DENIED.

3. The deadline to file a Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment,

Doc. 49, is Friday, January 21, 2011.

4. The deadline to file a Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Payment for

Records Produced to Plaintiff Xu in Response to Plaintiff's First Request for

Production of Documents, Doc. 53, is Friday, January 21, 2011.

5. The trial in this case is CONTINUED until Monday, May 16, 2011, at 9:00 a.m.

DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of January, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

TERRY M. KNIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:10cv78/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 a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 1, 8). It affirmatively

appears that leave to proceed in forma pauperis should be granted. However, before service can

be directed, Plaintiff must submit prepared USM 285 forms for Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner

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

General of the United States. Additionally, Plaintiff must submit three (3) copies of his complaint.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 8) is GRANTED.

2. The clerk of court shall forward to Plaintiff three blank USM forms.

3. Plaintiff shall submit the completed USM forms within twenty 20 days of the date

of this order, along with three services copies of his complaint.

4. Upon receipt of the completed USM forms and copies of the complaint, the clerk of

court is directed to issue the summonses and return them, along with the three certified copies of this

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

Marshal.
Page 2 of 2

5. The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the complaint and summons upon

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

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

Mail or by hand-delivery. 

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

required to mail to the attorney for the 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 the Defendant which does not contain a certificate

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

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of April 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No: 5:10cv78/RS/EMT
Exhibit 4.2


 


DESCRIPTION OF THE REGISTRANT’S
SECURITIES


REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12
OF THE


SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


 


ClearSign Technologies Corporation has 64,500,000
shares of capital stock authorized under our articles of incorporation, consisting of 62,500,000 shares of common stock and 2,000,000
shares of preferred stock. We have no preferred stock outstanding.


 


Our authorized but unissued shares of common
stock are available for issuance without further action by our shareholders, unless such action is required by applicable law or
the rules of any stock exchange or automated quotation system on which our securities are, or may become, listed or traded.


 


Holders of our common stock are entitled
to such dividends as may be declared by our board of directors out of funds legally available for such purpose, subject to any
preferential dividend rights of any then outstanding preferred stock. The shares of common stock are neither redeemable nor convertible.
With the exception of one shareholder who, until December 31, 2023 has the right to participate in future offerings of our common
stock, holders of common stock have no preemptive or subscription rights to purchase any of our securities.


 


Each holder of our common stock is entitled
to one vote for each such share outstanding in the holder’s name. No holder of common stock is entitled to cumulate votes
in voting for directors.


 


In the event of our liquidation, dissolution
or winding up, the holders of our common stock are entitled to receive pro rata our assets that are legally available for distribution,
after payments of all debts and other liabilities and subject to the prior rights of any holders of preferred stock then outstanding.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CARLOS CAMACHO,

Plaintiff,

v. 3:10cv254-WS

J. DEMORET, et al.,

Defendants.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation docketed

May 18, 2011. See Doc. 28. The magistrate judge recommends that the plaintiff's

complaint and this case be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The plaintiff has filed

no objections to the report and recommendation but has filed a motion for voluntary

dismissal. Doc. 32.

Having considered the record, the court finds that the case must be dismissed as

recommended by the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 28) is hereby

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. The plaintiff's complaint and this action are DISMISSED for failure to state a

claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Case 3:10-cv-00254-WS-CJK Document 33 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. The plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal (doc. 32), filed after the issuance

of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, is DENIED. See Stone v. Smith,

No. CV608-088, 2009 WL 368620, at *1-2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 13, 2009) (denying inmate's

post-report-and-recommendation motion to voluntarily dismiss his action, explaining that

it would frustrate the purpose of the Prison Litigation Reform Act to allow an inmate to

voluntarily dismiss his action after a magistrate judge reviewed the inmate's allegations

and found them lacking).

4. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: "All claims are DISMISSED with

prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of June , 2011.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00254-WS-CJK Document 33 Filed 06/21/11 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JAMES D. WEBB, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10cv88-MP-GRJ

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated February 22, 2012. (Doc. 31). The parties have been furnished

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de

novo determination of 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: 

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. The Motion to Dismiss the Petition as Untimely, (doc. 28) is GRANTED, the case

is dismissed, and the Clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of April, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00088-MP-GRJ Document 32 Filed 04/30/12 Page 1 of 1
#### Leonard W. Ely, Respondent, *v.*William M. Barrett, as President of Adams Express Company, Appellant.

*Ely*v. *Barrett,*181 App. Div. 176, appeal dismissed.

(Argued May 27, 1918;

decided June 4, 1918.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal by permission from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 12, 1918, *unanimously*affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury.

The motion was made upon the ground that the judgment, from which leave to appeal was granted, has since been amended by the Appellate Division and the question which it was sought to review has now been eliminated by reason of such amendment and upon the further ground that the appeal was frivolous and raised only academic questions.

*Alison M. Lederer*for motion.

*Edward V. Conwell*opposed.

*Per Curiam.*

On the 5th of March, 1918, leave was given to defendant to appeal from a judgment. Before a.notice of appeal was served, plaintiff made a motion at the Appellate Division, that it make findings of fact, to the effect that the damages sustained by plaintiff were due to defendant’s negligence. The motion was granted, the findings made, and a new judgment rendered to conform with such findings.

After the judgment was rendered the defendant served a notice of appeal, not only from the original judgment, but from the new judgment. The plaintiff now moves for a re-argument of the motion giving defendant leave to appeal, and for a dismissal of the appeal.

1 The Appellate Division had the power, under section 1317 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the purpose of supporting the judgment, to reverse findings made by the trial court and substitute new findings in place *551thereof. *(Rives*v. *Bartlett,*215 N. Y. 33; *Birnbaum*v. *May,*170 N. Y. 314.) A new judgment was entered upon the findings unanimously affirming the judgment of the trial court. That judgment took the place of the original judgment and defendant could not appeal therefrom without leave. Leave has not been given and, therefore, the motion to 'dismiss the appeal is granted, with costs, and ten dollars costs of motion.

His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ., concur.

Appeal dismissed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 18, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00784

- CV

KARGES

- FAULCONBRIDGE, INC

. , Appellant

v.

Keath GARRISON and Kassie Garris on, Individually and as Next Friends of Karrah Garrison and Mayvie Garrison, Minor Children; Haela Garrison; Ernest D. Copelin, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Roper T. Nathon Copelin, Deceased; Tangela M. Copelin; Texas

Mutual Insuranc e Company, as Subrogee of Keath Garrison and Roper T. Nathan Copelin, Deceased, Appellees

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI00853 Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice

Appellant has filed a motion to abate t his appeal in order to seek the trial court’s approval of a settlement that would dispose of all claims again st appellant in the underlying case. We grant the motion and order the deadlines in this appeal are suspended for thirty days. Appellant is ordered to file, by M a rch 19, 2020 , either its brief or a motion to dispose of this appeal in a ccordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my ha nd and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 18th day of February, 2020

.___________________________________ Michael A . Cruz

, Clerk of Court
# C_2010013EN.01001301.xml

| 20.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/13

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

19 January 2010

2010/C 13/05

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4279 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 129,79 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4421 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87430 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,1518 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4760 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1485 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,905 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 267,94 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7085 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0303 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1205 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0850 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5541 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4723 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,0846 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9440 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9871 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 609,87 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,6210 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,7488 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2925 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 264,32 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7685 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 65,473 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 42,3735 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,960 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5405 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,1607 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 65,4050 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4279

JPY

Japanese yen

129,79

DKK

Danish krone

7,4421

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87430

SEK

Swedish krona

10,1518

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4760

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1485

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,905

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

267,94

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7085

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0303

RON

Romanian leu

4,1205

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0850

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5541

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4723

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,0846

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9440

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9871

KRW

South Korean won

1 609,87

ZAR

South African rand

10,6210

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,7488

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2925

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 264,32

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7685

PHP

Philippine peso

65,473

RUB

Russian rouble

42,3735

THB

Thai baht

46,960

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5405

MXN

Mexican peso

18,1607

INR

Indian rupee

65,4050

---

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

1

Source

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JAMES M. HANNERS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No.: 3:10cv251/MCR/MD

THOMAS EDWARD COLONNA, 

Defendant.

____________________________/

O R D E R

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

(doc. 11), dated October 18, 2010. The plaintiff 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), and I have made a de novo determination

of those portions to which an objection has been made.

Having considered the report and recommendation and all 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. The unrepresented corporate plaintiff HTC Ventures, LLC is dismissed as a

party plaintiff in this action. 

3. The defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (doc. 3)

is GRANTED and the defendant’s alternative motion for transfer of venue (doc. 3) is

DENIED as moot.

4. This case is dismissed and the clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of March, 2011.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Liberty Energy Coal Corp.,  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Edwin
G. Morrow,  Chief Executive Officer, on the date indicated below, hereby certify
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 my knowledge:

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

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


Date: May 16, 2011                        By: /s/ Edwin G. Morrow
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Edwin G. Morrow
                                              Chief Executive Officer (Principal
                                              Executive Officer)