alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010236EN.01000201.xml

| 1.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

31 August 2010

2010/C 236/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2680 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 107,07 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4448 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,82480 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3890 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2935 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0245 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,850 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 287,68 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7093 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0135 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2568 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9373 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4304 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3489 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,8653 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8187 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7193 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 520,05 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,4044 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,6318 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2725 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 471,82 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9936 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,456 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,1038 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,670 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2347 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,7820 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 59,6750 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2680

JPY

Japanese yen

107,07

DKK

Danish krone

7,4448

GBP

Pound sterling

0,82480

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3890

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2935

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0245

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,850

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

287,68

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7093

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0135

RON

Romanian leu

4,2568

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9373

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4304

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3489

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,8653

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8187

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7193

KRW

South Korean won

1 520,05

ZAR

South African rand

9,4044

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,6318

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2725

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 471,82

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9936

PHP

Philippine peso

57,456

RUB

Russian rouble

39,1038

THB

Thai baht

39,670

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2347

MXN

Mexican peso

16,7820

INR

Indian rupee

59,6750

---

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

1

Source

---
# C_2010282EN.01000601.xml

| 19.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

18 October 2010

2010/C 282/06

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3896 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 113,00 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4575 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87470 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2871 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,3359 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1500 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,536 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 276,63 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7092 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9226 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2815 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9748 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4087 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4192 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,7812 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8442 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,8091 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 553,51 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,5700 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,2326 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3370 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 412,48 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3036 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,142 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 42,3575 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,546 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,3271 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,3713 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 61,6750 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3896

JPY

Japanese yen

113,00

DKK

Danish krone

7,4575

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87470

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2871

CHF

Swiss franc

1,3359

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1500

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,536

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

276,63

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7092

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9226

RON

Romanian leu

4,2815

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9748

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4087

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4192

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,7812

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8442

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,8091

KRW

South Korean won

1 553,51

ZAR

South African rand

9,5700

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,2326

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3370

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 412,48

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3036

PHP

Philippine peso

60,142

RUB

Russian rouble

42,3575

THB

Thai baht

41,546

BRL

Brazilian real

2,3271

MXN

Mexican peso

17,3713

INR

Indian rupee

61,6750

---

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

1

Source

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50874

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RUBEN VALDEZ-ORTIZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:09-CR-1679-1

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Ruben Valdez-Ortiz (Valdez) pleaded guilty to attempted illegal reentry

and personating another when applying for admission to the United States. See

8 U.S.C. § 1326 and 18 U.S.C. § 1546. He now appeals the reasonableness of his

within-guidelines sentence. Because Valdez did not object to the reasonableness

of the sentence in the district court, review is limited to plain error. See United

States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 26, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-50874 Document: 00511274548 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2010
No. 09-50874

According to Valdez, his sentence is unreasonable because the 16-level

enhancement set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b) is not supported by empirical data.

This argument is foreclosed, as is his argument that the presumption of

reasonableness should not be applied to his within-guidelines sentence. See

United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 130 S. Ct. 192 (2009).

Valdez’s assertions regarding his personal history and circumstances and

his motive for reentering the United States are insufficient to rebut the

presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d

554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). The record reflects that the district court considered

the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Valdez has not demonstrated that

the district court’s imposition of a sentence within the advisory guidelines range

was error, plain or otherwise.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 09-50874 Document: 00511274548 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2010
# C_2010296EN.01002301.xml

| 30.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/23

---

Latest publication of COM documents other than legislative proposals and legislative proposals adopted by the Commission

2010/C 296/11

OJ C 76 of 25.3.2010

History of previous publications:

History of previous publications:

| | OJ C 303 of 15.12.2009 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 303 of 15.12.2009

| | OJ C 10 of 15.1.2009 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 10 of 15.1.2009

| | OJ C 208 of 15.8.2008 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 208 of 15.8.2008

| | OJ C 207 of 14.8.2008 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 207 of 14.8.2008

| | OJ C 202 of 8.8.2008 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 202 of 8.8.2008

| | OJ C 196 of 2.8.2008 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 196 of 2.8.2008

---
**
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,United States Code), the Trustee of Marine Petroleum Trust (the “Trust”) does hereby certify, to its knowledge, that: 

TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2021 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Trust fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Trust as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 

/s/ Ron E. Hooper
Ron E. Hooper
Senior Vice President on behalf of Simmons Bank,

not in its individual capacity but solely as

the Trustee ofMarine Petroleum Trust

Dated: February 14, 2022 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Trust and will be retained by the Trust and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated byreference into any filing of the Trust, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. 
**
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

EXEVIOUS SWAYNE LEE,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00187-MP -GRJ

ALACHUA COUNTY JAIL, BROWN, MICHAEL DOUGLAS,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 14, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, which recommends that plaintiff’s complaint, Doc. 1, be dismissed for failure

to comply with an order of the Court and for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has not objected to

the recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed. Finding no plain error, it is

accordingly

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Doc. 14, is ADOPTED

and incorporated herein.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint, Doc. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:10-cv-00187-MP-GRJ Document 16 Filed 05/23/11 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Sensorimotor Integration Study Section, February 20, 2007, 8 a.m. to February 20, 2007, 5 p.m., One Washington Circle Hotel, One Washington Circle, Washington, DC 20037 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 18, 2007, 72 FR 2292-2294.                

The meeting will be held at The Fairmont Hotel, 2401 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. The meeting date and time remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: February 1, 2007.

Anna Snouffer,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-560 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

FRANK X. VINCI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 3:10cv173/MCR/EMT

WARDEN CULPEPPER, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

ORDER

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

Recommendation dated July 13, 2012 (doc. 78). 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, it is now ORDERED as follows:

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

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Defendants Culpepper and McClamma’s motion to dismiss (doc. 69) is

GRANTED.

3. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff’s failure to

exhaust available administrative remedies.

4. The clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the file. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of August, 2012.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00173-MCR-EMT Document 80 Filed 08/03/12 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ANDREW ROMEO JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv513-MP-WCS

WARDEN PIPPEN, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated October 21, 2011. (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, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

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

incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. Defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. 27) is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (doc. 7) is DISMISSED without prejudice for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e) and for abuse

of the judicial process. The dismissal of this case shall count as a strike pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of February, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:10-cv-00513-MP-WCS Document 35 Filed 02/17/12 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

HENRY TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv514-RH/WCS

WALTER McNEIL et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

recommendation, ECF No. 18. No objections have been filed, and none are likely

to be filed, because the report and recommendation has been returned as

undeliverable mail. This is another illustration of the problem noted in the report

and recommendation: that the plaintiff has failed to keep the court advised of his

address and apparently has abandoned the case.

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s

opinion. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The complaint is DISMISSED

Case 4:10-cv-00514-RH-WCS Document 20 Filed 05/17/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

without prejudice.” The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on May 16, 2011.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge

Case No: 4:10cv514-RH/WCS

Case 4:10-cv-00514-RH-WCS Document 20 Filed 05/17/11 Page 2 of 2
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, 2009, 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:      November 27, 2009


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, 2009, 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:      November 27, 2009
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

SILVIO L. CORONADO,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00181-SPM -GRJ

ADVANCED TURBINE SUPPORT, INC., 

RICHARD GINDER, and 

RODNEY SHIDLER,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion For Extension Of Time To Serve

Verified Summary And Records. (Doc. 18.) Defendants request a seven day extension

of time until December 1, 2010 to serve Defendants’ verified summary and records as

required by the Court’s October 26, 2010 Order. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(B)

Defendants represent that Plaintiff’s counsel has been contacted and does not object to

the requested extension.

Upon due consideration, Defendants’ Motion For Extension Of Time To Serve

Verified Summary And Records (Doc. 18) is GRANTED. Defendants shall serve a

verified summary and its records by December 1, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 24 day of November, 2010. 

th

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO: 3:01cr108/RV 

3:05cv73/RV/MD

WILLIAM M. GRIMES a/k/a

 MIKE GRIMES

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER

The defendant has filed a notice of appeal (doc. 312) and a motion for certificate of

appealability (doc. 313) with respect to the order entered on March 31, 2005 (doc. 310).

Unless a certificate of appealability is issued, the defendant may not take an appeal from

the final order denying section 2255 relief. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B). Such a certificate

may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

Because the defendant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right, and for the reasons set forth in this court’s order of March 31, 2005, a

certificate of appealability is DENIED.

No motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis has been filed. The defendant has

not shown that the appeal is taken in good faith or that he is otherwise entitled to so 

proceed on appeal. Accordingly, the $255.00 filing fee shall be paid within 30 days from

the date of this order.

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of April, 2005.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:01-cr-00108-RV Document 317 Filed 04/25/05 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MICHAEL C. RUFFIN,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 4:09-CV-325-SPM/WCS

ROBIN F. FREEMAN-LOHAN,

Defendant.

________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 8). Plaintiff has been afforded an

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1). Plaintiff, who is pro se, filed an objection (doc. 9). Pursuant to Title

28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I have conducted a de novo review of

the sections of the report to which objections have been made. I find that the

Report and Recommendation is correct and should be adopted.

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the Defendant, an

Assistant State Attorney who prosecuted the Plaintiff in 1997, is absolutely

immune from suit under the federal civil rights statutes. In support of his

objection, Plaintiff relies on a Florida statute which provides that state agents are
immune from liability except where they acted with malicious purpose or in willful

disregard of the rights of others. However, reference to the Florida statute does

not alter the fact that under the federal civil rights statutes, which the Plaintiff

relies on for jurisdiction in this Court, the Defendant’s actions in pursuit of a

criminal prosecution are absolutely immune from suit. As the Plaintiff’s federal

claims must be dismissed for reason of immunity, the Court declines to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 8) is

adopted and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. This case is dismissed. 

3. The Clerk is directed to note on the docket that this cause was

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).

DONE AND ORDERED this twentieth day of October, 2009.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

2