alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

 PENSACOLA DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. Case Nos.: 3:01cr91/RV/CJK 

3:16cv316/RV/CJK 

BRUCE MAURICE TUCKER 

_____________________________/ 

ORDER 

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

Recommendation dated October 4, 2018 (doc. 76). 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). No 

objections have been filed. 

 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. The Government’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 71) is GRANTED and 

the motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence (ECF No. 68) is 

DISMISSED as untimely. 
Page 2 of 2

Case Nos.: 3:01cr91/RV/CJK; 3:16cv316/RV/CJK 

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

 DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of November, 2018. 

 /s/ Roger Vinson 

 ROGER VINSON 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00134-CR

MICHAEL DAVID FREDRICKSON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 21st District Court

Burleson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14,371

ORDER

Michael David Fredrickson was convicted of injury to a child and sentenced to 20 

years in prison. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04 (West 2011). On December 11, 2014, this 

appeal was abated to the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law 

regarding Fredrickson’s motion to suppress evidence and motion to suppress 

statements, both heard and ruled on by the trial court on February 24, 2014. The trial 

court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were ordered to be prepared, signed, and 

filed as a supplemental clerk’s record with this Court within 28 days from the date of 
Fredrickson v. State Page 2

the December 11, 2014 abatement order. The trial court has requested an extension of 

time to submit the required findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Accordingly, this appeal is reinstated. The trial court’s motion for extension of 

time is granted. This appeal is again abated, and the trial court’s findings of fact and 

conclusions of law are ordered to be prepared, signed, and filed as a supplemental 

clerk’s record with this Court within 21 days from the date of this order.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal reinstated

Motion granted

Appeal abated

Order issued and filed January 15, 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MICHAEL WELCH,

VS CASE NO. 4:09cv302-RH/WCS

JULIE JONES, 

JUDGMENT

It is declared that the disclosure of personal information from drivers license

records by the State of Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to

ShadowSoft, Inc., in accordance with the 2009 memorandum of understanding between

them does not violate the Drivers Privacy Protection Act. All further claims in this action

are dismissed with prejudice.

 March 3, 2011

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS

CLERK OF COURT

s/Pam Lourcey

DATE Deputy Clerk: Pam Lourcey

Case 4:09-cv-00302-RH-WCS Document 109 Filed 03/03/11 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

THOMAS FLOYD CROW,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-314-RH-GRJ

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 11, Respondent’s third motion for an

enlargement of time to respond to the Petition. Respondent requests a 30 day

extension of time within which to respond to the Petition.

Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED:

1. That the motion, Doc. 11, is GRANTED. Respondent shall respond to the

Petition on or before October 12, 2011.

2. Petitioner shall have until November 14, 2011, to file a reply, if any.

DONE AND ORDERED this 13 day of September 2011. 

th

s/ Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:10-cv-00314-RH-GRJ Document 12 Filed 09/13/11 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JENNIFER LOUISE ROZIER,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv508-RH/WCS

LONNIE SEAY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before me upon referral from the Clerk. In an order filed April 6,

2011, Plaintiff was directed to file a second amended complaint by May 6, 2011. 

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. 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.

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. 

Case 4:10-cv-00508-RH-WCS Document 7 Filed 05/16/11 Page 1 of 2
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 May 16, 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.

Case No. 4:10cv508-RH/WCS Page 2 of 2

Case 4:10-cv-00508-RH-WCS Document 7 Filed 05/16/11 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ROBERT MEYER, Individually

and On Behalf of All Others 

Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10-cv-452/RS-EMT

THE ST. JOE COMPANY, 

ET AL., 

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me are the Motions to Consolidate (Docs. 20 and 21) filed by Gerald L. 

Hess and Richard L. Kneisel and Southfield Fire & Police Retirement System, and the 

Notice of Compliance with Fla. N.D. Loc. R. 7.1 (B) (Doc. 26). 

From the pleadings, it appears that common questions of law or fact are involved 

in the two securities class action suits filed in this Court -- Meyer v. The St. Joe Co., et 

al., and Weissman v. The St. Joe Co., et al. Because all of the parties are in agreement, 

and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 (a) (2), the two cases shall be consolidated. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The relief requested in the Motions to Consolidate (Docs. 20 and 21) is 

GRANTED. 

2. The Clerk shall consolidate cases 3:10cv452 and 3:10cv504. 
3. The Clerk shall file a copy of this Order in each of these cases. 

4. All future pleadings should be filed only in case 3:10cv452/RS/EMT. 

5. Consideration of the Motions for Appointment of Lead Counsel (Docs. 20 and 21) 

will be by separate Order. 

ORDERED on January 11, 2011

/S/ Richard Smoak

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 1 of 1

Case No. 4:10cv525-RH/WCS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ELLIOTT FREEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv525-RH/WCS

JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

For the reasons set out on the record of the hearing on March 2, 2012, the 

defendant’s summary-judgment motion, ECF No. 39, is GRANTED. The 

defendant’s motion in limine, ECF No. 51, is DENIED AS MOOT. The clerk 

must enter judgment stating, “The plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice." 

The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on March 3, 2012.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00525-RH-WCS Document 60 Filed 03/03/12 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

PHILLIP L. ADAMCZYK et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv444-RH/WCS

THRIVENT FINANCIAL BANK,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

recommendation, ECF No. 11; supplemental report and recommendation, ECF No.

15; the plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 16; and the defendant’s response, ECF No.

17. I have reviewed de novo the issues raised by the objections.

The report and recommendation concludes that the plaintiff’s complaint fails

to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The supplemental report and

recommendation concludes that leave to file the first amended complaint should be

denied because it does not cure the deficiencies in the original complaint and thus

still fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. These conclusions are

correct.
The plaintiff’s pleadings are long on rhetoric and short on facts. The

plaintiff apparently obtained a mortgage loan from the defendant in 2003. The

plaintiff asserts that the defendant defrauded him, but the plaintiff does not allege

what the defendant said—or failed to say—that allegedly constituted fraud. The

plaintiff says the defendant failed to make required disclosures, but the plaintiff

does not say what the disclosures were, or why, if the defendant did not make

required disclosures, any resulting claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. 

In short, the plaintiff challenges banking practices—assigning mortgages and

creating securities based on mortgages—without alleging facts suggesting that the

defendant did anything improper toward the plaintiff. The plaintiff has failed to

state a claim on which relief can be granted.

The plaintiff has not asked for leave to amend further. There is no reason to

believe that granting leave to amend further would serve any purpose. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The report and recommendation, ECF No. 11, and supplemental report

and recommendation, ECF No. 15, are ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s

opinion. 

2. The plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF No. 3, is

DENIED.

3. The defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 9, is GRANTED.
4. The plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 12, for leave to file the first amended

complaint, ECF No. 14, is DENIED. 

5. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The compliant is dismissed with

prejudice.”

6. The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on January 31, 2011.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ANTHONY J. FAILS,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 3:10cv402/LAC/MD

W. GELOW,

Defendant.

 

O R D E R

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

recommendation dated January 24, 2011. 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. This cause is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for plaintiff’s failure to

comply with an order of the court.
Page 2 of 2

3. The clerk is directed to close the file. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 24 day of February, 2011. th

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 3:10cv402/LAC/MD
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

LUIS E MONGE,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00173-MP -GRJ

DOE DEFENDANT,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff has responded to the Court’s show cause order dated September 27,

2010 (Doc. 14) to explain that he wants to stay his lawsuit until two weeks after his

release “circa” December 28, 2010, because he is uncomfortable proceeding from

“behind the fence.” (Doc. 15). Plaintiff also says that since his transfer to the

Gainesville Work Camp he no longer has the time to pursue “this very sensitive matter

correctly and efficiently.” (Doc. 15). 

At this point in the proceedings, no filing fee has been paid, no motion for leave

to proceed has been filed, and the only “complaint” filed in this matter is a “Truth

Affidavit,” which is also entitled “Affidavit of Criminal Complaint for Contract Violation for

Depriving of Right.” No claims have been identified and no defendants have been

named. The papers are mostly incoherent. 

Plaintiff was advised that he must pay the filing fee or file a motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, and that he must submit a complaint on the proper forms or

it would be recommended that this matter be dismissed. (Docs. 7 and 14). 

A trial court has inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to
Page 2 of 2

prosecute. Link v. Wabash Railroad, 370 U.S. 626 (1962); Eades v. Alabama Dept. of

Human Resources, 298 Fed. Appx. 862 (11th Cir. 2008) (district court has discretion to

dismiss case sua sponte where plaintiff has failed to comply with court orders and was

on notice that such failure may result in dismissal). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) also

authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order. 

Plaintiff was warned that this matter may be dismissed if he did not resolve the

issue of court costs and file a pleading that provided facts and claims. Even though

Plaintiff expresses an intent to pursue this lawsuit, he has not been diligent in

prosecuting it, and therefore this matter should be dismissed (rather than stayed) 

without prejudice so that Plaintiff may re-file this cause when he is released and can

provide financial information relevant at that time to his ability to pay court costs as a

non-prisoner. 

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED

without prejudice.

At Gainesville, Florida, this 8 day of November 2010. th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), 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: 1:10-cv-00173-MP -GRJ
Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report of AutoWeb,
Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the
year ended December 31, 2018 (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby
certify in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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











Date: March 11,
2019
By: /s/ Jared R.
Rowe

Jared R. Rowe
Chief Executive
OfficerDate: March 11,
2019
By: /s/ Joseph P.
Hannan

Joseph P.
Hannan
Chief Financial
Officer











A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,
or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the
electronic version of this written statement required by Section
906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cr-00043-MP -GRJ

ROBERT ALEXANDER KRASNOW,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 39, Motion to Modify Conditions of Release by

Robert Alexander Krasnow. Defendant moves the Court to modify the terms of his release to

permit travel outside Alachua County to attend his wife’s immigration hearing in Jacksonville,

Florida, on April 7, 2011. The Probation Office has indicated its ability to monitor Defendant’s

location via GPS during his trip. The government has not objected to this motion. Accordingly,

it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Motion to Modify Conditions of Release, Doc. 39, is GRANTED.

2. Defendant is permitted to travel to Jacksonville, Florida on April 7, 2011 to attend

his wife’s immigration hearing.

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of April, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ALBERT (ALTON) E. BARNES.

(Filed 19 December 1963.)

On *certiorari*further to- review an order in .a poet conviction hearing held by *Mintz, J.,*on February 6, 1963, denying defendant’s prayer for a new trial because of alleged denial of -his constitutional rights in a jury trial and conviction in .the Superior Court of ONSlow County, North Carolina. The defendant was convicted of a felony and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the Superior Court of Onslow County at its October Term, 1961. This Court, on April 16, 1963, denied the defendant’s application for *certiorari*to review Miotz’s order of February 6, 1963.

The defendant applied for -and was granted a *writ of certiorari*by the •Supreme Count of the United States. At its October Term, 1963, that Court ordered that the judgment of this Court of April 16,1963, denying *certiorari,*be vacated 'and “ . . . this cause be remanded to' the Supreme Court of North Carolina for further consideration in the light of *Gideon v. Wainwright,*372 U.S. 335.”

*T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, James F. Bullock, Assistant Attorney General for the State.*

*Earl Whitted, Jr., Samuel S. Mitchell for petitioner appellant.*

Pee Cueiam.

After further review upon the application of the tabove named defendant, this Court concludes the defendant’s constitutional rights as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States in *Gideon v. Wainwright*were not afforded him at his trial at the October Term, 1961, in the Superior Court of Onslow County. The ver-'diiot of guilty and the judgment of imprisonment thereon are, therefore, set aside and a new trial is ordered.

New trial.
Exhibit 13.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
    "Company") for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Daniel Johannes Pretorius, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:
  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Daniel Johannes Pretorius
  By: Title:    
  Chief Executive Officer Date:    October 29, 2010


Exhibit 13.2
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
    "Company") for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Craig Clinton Barnes, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:
  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Craig Clinton Barnes
  By: Title: Chief Financial Officer Date: October 29, 2010
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

AAHTRELL R JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00225-MP -GRJ

SECRETARY, DEPT. OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 6, Respondent’s first motion for an

extension of time to respond to the Petition. Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED:

1. That the motion, Doc. 6, is GRANTED. Respondent shall respond to the

Petition on or before March 16, 2011.

2. Petitioner shall have until April 15, 2011, to file a reply, if any.

DONE AND ORDERED this 15 day of February 2011. 

th

s/ Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge
EXHIBIT 32.1



STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

INDEPENDENT FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with this Quarterly Report of Independent Film Development Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeff Ritchie, the Chief Executive Officer and Director 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/A for the period ending June 30, 2008, 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/A for the period ending March 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  January 28, 2009



/s/  Jeff Ritchie

Jeff Ritchie

Chief Executive Officer and Director