alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with this Quarterly Report of INDEPENDENT FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth Eade, the Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting 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 to my knowledge:



1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Dated:  August 25, 2010 | /s/ Kenneth Eade
Kenneth Eade
Chief Financial Officer and Director
|----------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

TERRANCE L. McCLOUD, #DC2 L38960 

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 4:10cv461-MP/WCS

WALTER McNEIL, 

 

Defendant.

_________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before me upon referral from the Clerk. In an order filed February

10. 2011, Plaintiff was directed to submit an initial partial filing fee in the amount of $.50

and to instruct the agency having custody of Plaintiff to forward the balance due of the

filing fee in monthly payments from Plaintiff's account, pursuant to the Prison Litigation

Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). Plaintiff was advised that his

failure to comply with that order would result in a recommendation of dismissal of this

action. Doc. 13. Plaintiff has not responded.

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
Page 2 of 2

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

denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989). Failure to pay an assessed initial partial filing fee is

grounds for dismissal. Wilson v. Sargent, 313 F.3d 1315, 1318, 1322, n.7, citing Collier

v. Tatum, 722 F.2d 653, 655-56 (11th Cir. 1983). Since Plaintiff has failed to comply

with orders of this court, and failed to respond to the order to show cause, his complaint

should now be dismissed without prejudice.1 

Plaintiff shall have a 14 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 March 30, 2011. 

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 plaintiff was directed to submit the initial partial filing fee and 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. 4:10cv461-MP/WCS
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LAWRENCE TYLER DOWNING,

Plaintiff,

v. 3:10cv200-WS

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 15)

docketed February 16, 2012. The magistrate judge recommends that the plaintiff's case

be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court and for failure to keep the

court informed as to his current address. 

The court has reviewed the record and has determined that the magistrate

judge's report and recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 15) is hereby

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. The plaintiff's complaint, and this action, are hereby DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with an order of the court, to keep the

court informed as to his current address, and to otherwise prosecute his case.

Case 3:10-cv-00200-WS-CJK Document 17 Filed 03/15/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: "All claims are DISMISSED without

prejudice."

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of March , 2012.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00200-WS-CJK Document 17 Filed 03/15/12 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

CHARLES CARLISLE,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv282/RS-GRJ

PANAMA CITY JET CENTER, LLC,

a Florida Limited Liability Company

d/b/a SHELTAIR AVIATION SERVICES.

Defendant.

____________________________________/

ORDER

Before me are the Joint Stipulation For Dismissal Of FLSA Action With Prejudice

(Doc. 21) and the Confidential Settlement Agreement, General Release And Waiver Of

Claims (Doc. 21-1).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Confidential Settlement Agreement, General Release And Waiver Of

Claims is approved.

2. This case is dismissed with prejudice.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on February 11, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JEFFREY PARNELL,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv302/LAC/EMT

WALTER McNEIL, et al.,

Defendants. 

___________________________________/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated September 7, 2010 (Doc. 8). 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). 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, 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. Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal (Doc. 7) is GRANTED and this case is

DISMISSED without prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED this 6 day of October, 2010. th

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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 Maritime Commission
 Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary license has been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping 
                    ( print page 71852)
                    Act of 1984, as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515. License No.
Name/address
Date reissued003735FF
Macro Trans Corporation, 7 Dey Street, New York, NY 10007
September 12, 2005.
 Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.


[FR Doc. 05-23473 Filed 11-29-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Jeff Ritchie, certify that:



(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Independent Film Development Corporation;



(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



(4) The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



(5) The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



|Dated:  May 23, 2011 | /s/ Jeff Ritchie
Jeff Ritchie
Chief Executive Officer and Director
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 52A23

Filed 22 March 2024

JAMES W. BRADSHAW; CARLA O. BRADSHAW; RESORT RETAIL 

ASSOCIATES, INC.; E.C. BROADFOOT; CHRISTINA DUNN CHANDRA;

THOMAS F. EGAN; CHARLES EGGERT; MARK P. GARSIDE; DR. JAMES J. 

GREEN, JR.; ROBERT K. GRUNEWALD; RONALD HOLMES; DAVID LAUCK; 

CURT W. LEMKAU, JR.; EVAN MIDDLETON; JOSHUA M. NELSON; 

CHRISTIAN C. NUGENT; REGINA H. PAKRADOONI, as Executrix of the Estate 

of PETER B. PAKRADOONI, deceased; FORD PERRY; MARCELLO G. 

PORCELLI; ADAN RENDON; RICHARD H. STEVENSON; PAUL STOKES; 

LAWRENCE J. THEIL; R. MITCHELL WICKHAM; WILLIAM H. WILLIAMSON, 

III; WILLIAM K. WRIGHT, JR.; ALEX M. WOLF; CHAFFIN FAMILY LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP; and SOLARIS CAPITAL LLC

v.

STEPHEN E. MAIDEN; MAIDEN CAPITAL, LLC; and SS&C TECHNOLOGIES,

INC., successor by merger to SS&C FUND ADMINISTRATION SERVICES, LLC

(a/k/a SS&C FUND SERVICES)

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the unpublished decision of a 

divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 287 N.C. App. 393, 2022 WL 17985671 (2022), 

affirming orders and opinions dated 10 August 2015, 1 September 2020, and 15 

September 2020, and entered on 20 August 2015, 4 September 2020, and 30 

September 2020, respectively, by Chief Business Court Judge Louis A. Bledsoe III in 

Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, after the case was designated a mandatory 

complex business case by the Chief Justice pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-45.4(b). Heard 

in the Supreme Court on 14 February 2024. 

Lewis & Roberts, PLLC, by Matthew D. Quinn and James A. Roberts, III, and 

Mauney PLLC, by Gary V. Mauney, for plaintiff-appellants. 
BRADSHAW V. MAIDEN

Opinion of the Court

-2-

Alston & Bird LLP, by Ryan P. Ethridge and Michael A. Kaeding; and Paul, 

Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, & Garrison LLP, by Rober A. Atkins, pro hac vice, 

and Jeffrey J. Recher, pro hac vice, for defendant-appellee SS&C Technologies, 

Inc. 

PER CURIAM.

Justice DIETZ did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

The remaining members of the Court are equally divided, with three members voting 

to affirm and three members voting to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed and stands 

without precedential value. See Batson v. Coastal Res. Comm’n, 385 N.C. 328, 892 

S.E.2d 589 (2023) (per curiam) (affirming by an equally divided vote a Court of 

Appeals decision without precedential value). 

AFFIRMED.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DAPHNE M. GILBERT,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv301-RH/WCS

WARDEN P. AUGUSTINE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

September 13, 2010, Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint by October 18,

2010. Plaintiff was specifically warned that a recommendation would be made that this

case be dismissed if there was a failure to comply with that order. Doc. 7. 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, this complaint should now be dismissed without prejudice. 

Plaintiff shall have a 14 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 this failure to respond. Plaintiff may do so by filing 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 November 10, 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.

Case No. 4:10cv301-RH/WCS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 

VS CASE NO. 3:10cr67-RV 

 

ALEJANDRINO POPOCA 

REFERRAL AND ORDER

 

Referred to Judge Vinson on 1/28/2022 

Type of Motion/Pleading MOTION for Compassionate Release Reduction 

in Sentence 

 

Filed by: Defendant on 1/21/2022 Doc. No. 492 

 Stipulated/Consented/Joint Pleading/Unopposed 

Response: Government on 1/28/2022 Doc. No. 493 

 

 

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS 

CLERK OF COURT 

/s/ Sylvia Williams 

 Deputy Clerk 

 

ORDER

 

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 1st day of February, 2022, 

that: 

(a) The requested relief is DENIED, for the reasons set out in the government’s 

response (doc. 493) 

 

 /s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
# C_2011029EN.01000701.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6070 — Predica/Generali Vie/Europe Avenue)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 29/03

On 25 January 2011, 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 French 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 32011M6070. 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 32011M6070. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Case 5:10-cv-00205-RS -MD Document 12 Filed 12/06/10 Page 1 of 8
Case 5:10-cv-00205-RS -MD Document 12 Filed 12/06/10 Page 2 of 8
Case 5:10-cv-00205-RS -MD Document 12 Filed 12/06/10 Page 3 of 8
Case 5:10-cv-00205-RS -MD Document 12 Filed 12/06/10 Page 4 of 8
Case 5:10-cv-00205-RS -MD Document 12 Filed 12/06/10 Page 5 of 8
Case 5:10-cv-00205-RS -MD Document 12 Filed 12/06/10 Page 6 of 8
Case 5:10-cv-00205-RS -MD Document 12 Filed 12/06/10 Page 7 of 8
Case 5:10-cv-00205-RS -MD Document 12 Filed 12/06/10 Page 8 of 8
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MICHAEL C. RUFFIN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:09cv326-RH/AK

KAREN BROWN,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

recommendation (document 7). No objections have been filed. 

The recommendation is for dismissal of this case on two grounds: first, that

the plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or filed a properly supported motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis as required by prior orders; and second, that the

claim is barred by the statute of limitations. This order accepts the

recommendation for dismissal on the first ground only and adopts the

corresponding part of the report as the court’s opinion. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The complaint is DISMISSED for
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:09cv326-RH/AK

failure to pay the filing fee or to file a properly supported motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis.” The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on January 19, 2010.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-40752 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JESUS DE LA TORRE-MOLINA, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:10-CR-165-1
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jesus De La Torre-Molina (De La Torre) appeals the sentence imposed following his illegal reentry convictio n . H e a rgues that the district court committed procedural error when it determined that it lacked the authority to

run De La Torre’s illegal reentry senten c e concurrently with a previously imposed sentenc e f

o llowing the revocation of his supervised release. The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for dismissal of the appeal or an extension of time to file a brief, contending that De La Torre’s U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 17 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-40752 Document: 00511823889 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2012No. 11-40752

appeal is barred by his appellate wa iv e r . De La Torre does not contest the validity or enforceability of the appeal waiver. The plain language of the plea agreement confirms that the waiver applies to the issue at hand, and our review of the rearraignment proceedings confirms that the appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Bond , 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005). De La Torre’s valid appeal waiver thus bars the instant appeal. See United States v. McKinney , 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2 0 05). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, th e Government’s alternative motions for dismissal of the appeal and an extension of time to file a brief are DENIED, and the judgment of th e di s t rict court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-40752 Document: 00511823889 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2012
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 01, 2024. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, October 01, 2024 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A25I0036. PAINT BOOTH DOCTORS, LLC d/b/a AYERS CONSTRUCTION et al v. MOHAMED NAGI.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2020SV3074
# C_2010166EN.01000501.xml

| 25.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/5

---

Adoption of a reference document for the purpose of Council Directive 2008/1/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (1)

1

2010/C 166/04

On 18 May 2010, the Commission adopted the complete text of the reference document on best available techniques for the Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries.

This document is available on the Internet site: http://eippcb.jrc.es

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2008, p. 8.

1

---