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

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

CHARLES CLAY SANMANN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:10cv168/RS/MD

GEORGE C. ZOLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This civil rights case is before the court upon plaintiff’s Motion to Voluntarily

Withdraw this action (doc. 8), which is construed as a notice of voluntary dismissal. 

Pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 41(a)(1), this action should be dismissed.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That this cause be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2. That all pending motions be DENIED as moot.

3. That the clerk be directed to close the file.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 27 day of August, 2010. th

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed

within fourteen 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, and does not

control. A copy of objections shall be served upon 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 (11 Cir. 1988). th
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas August 22, 2022 No. 04-22-00494-CR Brian Everett DAY , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18-0279-CR-A Honorable William D. Old III, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R The reporter’s record was originally due on August 15, 2022. On August 16, 2022, court reporter D’Lois Jones filed a notification of late record, notifying this court that the reporter’s record was not filed because appellant has not provided the reporter a designation of record. It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court within ten (10) days of the date of this order that appellant has requested the court reporter to prepare the reporter’s record, which request must designate the portions of the proceedings and the exhibits to be included. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 34.6(b)(1). It is further ORDERED that the reporter’s record must be filed no later than thirty (30) days after the date appellant’s written proof is filed with this court. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, appellant’s brief will be due within thirty (30) days from the date the clerk’s record is filed, and the court will consider only those issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 37.3(c).

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 22nd day of August, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7342

JAMES BENJAMIN PUCKETT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HECTOR JOYNER, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Estill, South 

Carolina,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. 

David C. Norton, District Judge. (1:18-cv-02404-DCN)

Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: April 9, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Benjamin Puckett, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Benjamin Puckett, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing without prejudice on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition.*

 The district court 

referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The 

magistrate judge recommended dismissing the petition without prejudice for lack of 

jurisdiction and advised Puckett that failure to file timely, specific objections to the 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation. 

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Massey v. Ojaniit, 759 

F.3d 343, 352 (4th Cir. 2014); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985). Puckett has 

waived appellate review by failing to file objections. Accordingly, we grant leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in 

the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 * The district court’s order is final and appealable as no amendment could cure the 

defect identified in Puckett’s petition. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 

F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015)
Exhibit 99.1
 REPORT OF MANAGEMENT AND DIRECTORS ON OIL AND GAS DISCLOSURE
   
    
    the low, best and high estimate of discovered bitumen initially-in-place associated
with the Companys 100 percent working interest in the Axe Lake Discovery is 1.241
billion barrels, 1.723 billion barrels and 2.334 billion barrels, respectively;
    
    the low, best and high estimate of discovered bitumen initially-in-place associated
with the Companys 100 percent working interest in the Raven Ridge Discovery is 0.337
billion barrels, 0.566 billion barrels and 0.727 billion barrels, respectively; and,
    
    the low, best and high estimate of undiscovered bitumen initially-in-place
associated with the Companys 100 percent working interest in the Raven Ridge Discovery
is 0.493 billion barrels, 1.949 billion barrels and 3.523 billion barrels,
respectively.




---



##### 



/s/ Christopher Hopkins

Christopher H. Hopkins
President and Chief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    /s/ T. Murray Wilson

T. Murray Wilson
Executive Chairman/s/ Thomas Milne

Thomas Milne
Director
    
    
    
    /s/ Gordon Tallman

Gordon Tallman
Director
# C_2010072EN.01001001.xml

| 20.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/10

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

19 March 2010

2010/C 72/07

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3548 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 122,86 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4409 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89450 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,6775 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4374 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9730 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,365 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 262,70 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7079 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8795 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,0820 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0776 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4727 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3666 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5128 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9045 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,8906 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 534,66 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,8958 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,2486 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2600 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 336,82 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4753 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,698 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,6750 |
| THB | Thai baht | 43,731 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,4302 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,9574 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 61,6500 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3548

JPY

Japanese yen

122,86

DKK

Danish krone

7,4409

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89450

SEK

Swedish krona

9,6775

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4374

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9730

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,365

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

262,70

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7079

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8795

RON

Romanian leu

4,0820

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0776

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4727

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3666

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5128

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9045

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,8906

KRW

South Korean won

1 534,66

ZAR

South African rand

9,8958

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,2486

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2600

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 336,82

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4753

PHP

Philippine peso

61,698

RUB

Russian rouble

39,6750

THB

Thai baht

43,731

BRL

Brazilian real

2,4302

MXN

Mexican peso

16,9574

INR

Indian rupee

61,6500

---

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

1

Source

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |    /s/ Richard Douglas                                      |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  Richard Douglas                                                      |
|  Title:    |  Principal Executive Officer,Principal Financial Officer and Director |
|  Date:     |  March 15, 2011                                                       |
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DOUGLAS LOWERY,

Plaintiff,

v. 3:10cv308-WS

SANTA ROSA COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 16)

docketed March 21, 2012. The magistrate judge recommends that this case be

dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with an order of the court and to

prosecute this case.

Upon review of the record, this court has determined that the recommendation

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

2. The plaintiff's complaint, and this action, are hereby DISMISSED without

prejudice for failure to comply with an order of the court and to prosecute his case.

3. The clerk is directed to enter judgment, stating: "All claims are dismissed

without prejudice."

Case 3:10-cv-00308-WS-CJK Document 18 Filed 03/29/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of March , 2012.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00308-WS-CJK Document 18 Filed 03/29/12 Page 2 of 2
# C_2010070EN.01002601.xml

| 19.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/26

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5732 — Hewlett-Packard/3COM)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 70/04

On 12 February 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5732. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5732. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# C_2010218EN.01000201.xml

| 12.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 218/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 218/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

11 August 2010

2010/C 218/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3016 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 110,56 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4504 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,82780 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4790 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,3695 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9665 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,820 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 282,12 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7083 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0055 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2380 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9688 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4401 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3504 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1076 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8074 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7701 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 538,89 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,4753 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,8183 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2200 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 693,98 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1287 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,856 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,3685 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,554 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2980 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,5360 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 60,7910 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3016

JPY

Japanese yen

110,56

DKK

Danish krone

7,4504

GBP

Pound sterling

0,82780

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4790

CHF

Swiss franc

1,3695

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9665

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,820

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

282,12

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7083

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0055

RON

Romanian leu

4,2380

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9688

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4401

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3504

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1076

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8074

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7701

KRW

South Korean won

1 538,89

ZAR

South African rand

9,4753

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,8183

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2200

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 693,98

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1287

PHP

Philippine peso

58,856

RUB

Russian rouble

39,3685

THB

Thai baht

41,554

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2980

MXN

Mexican peso

16,5360

INR

Indian rupee

60,7910

---

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

1

Source

---
#### Gabriel A. Bobrick, Respondent, *v.*The Second National Bank of Hoboken, Appellant.

*Bobrick*v. *Second Nat. Bank of Hoboken, 175*App. Div. 550, affirmed.

(Argued October 9, 1918;

decided October 29, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 20, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury in an action to recover the amount of three checks drawn by the defendant bank,- at the request of one of its depositors, on the *638National Park Bank of New York in favor of plaintiff. The checks were delivered to the plaintiff, but when presented at the New York bank payment was refused. The defense pleaded is that the checks were given by defendant to plaintiff without consideration at the request of a depositor in the defendant’s bank; that under instructions of said depositor, after the checks were given, their payment was stopped.

*James A. Davis*for appellant.

*Barclay E. V. McCarty*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Collin, Cuddeback, Caedozo, Pound, Cbane and Andrews, JJ.
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 Explore Anywhere Holding 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, Oliver
Nelson, Principal Executive Officer, 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; and

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


Date: October 17, 2011                By: /s/ Oliver Nelson
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                      Name:  Oliver Nelson
                                      Title: CEO and Principal Executive Officer
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5215 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to prohibit employees found 

to have knowingly misused Department of Veterans Affairs purchase cards from serving as purchase card holders or approving officials. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5215 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Affairs Pur3 chase Card Misuse Mitigation Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. MISUSE OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

5 PURCHASE CARDS BY DEPARTMENT EMPLOY6 EES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 7 of title 38, United 

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing new section: 

10 ‘‘§ 727. Misuse of Department purchase cards 

11 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall prohibit any 

12 employee of the Department who the Secretary or the In13 spector General of the Department determines has know14 ingly misused a purchase card from serving as a purchase 

15 card holder or approving official. Such a prohibition shall 

16 be in addition to any other applicable penalty. 

17 ‘‘(b) MISUSE.—For purposes of this section, the term 

18 ‘misuse’ means— 

19 ‘‘(1) splitting purchases; 

20 ‘‘(2) exceeding applicable purchase card limits 

21 or purchase thresholds; 

22 ‘‘(3) purchasing any unauthorized item; 

23 ‘‘(4) using a purchase card without being an 

24 authorized purchase card holder; or 

25 ‘‘(5) violating ethics standards.’’. 
3 

•HR 5215 EH

1 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

2 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting 

3 after the item relating to section 725 the following new 

4 item: 

‘‘727. Misuse of Department purchase cards.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5215 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct 

ficials. serving as purchase card holders or approving ofment of Veterans Affairs purchase cards from ployees found to have knowingly misused Departthe Secretary of Veterans Affairs to prohibit em-
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-12-000047931-DEC-201208:21 AM
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

LAMAR PLAYER,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00098-MP-AK

SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondents.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A review of the petition reflects that it is identical to another petition

pending before the Court in Player v. Sec’y, Dept. of Corr., Case No. 1:10-cv105-MP-AK. The

Court has already directed Petitioner to file an amended petition in that case. Because the claims

in each case are identical, and the Court has undertaken preliminary review and issued an order

to amend in Petitioner’s other case, the instant case should be dismissed. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

This case is DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to pursue his habeas

corpus claims in Player v. Sec’y, Dept. of Corr., Case No. 1:10-cv105-MP-AK, in

accordance with the Court’s order to amend (Doc. 7) in that case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of July, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge