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

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JOY JANELLA COOPER,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:11cv78/MCR/EMT

BREVARD COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated February 23, 2011 (Doc. 4). 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). 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. This case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Florida.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of March, 2011.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:00-cv-00566-LC Document 11 Filed 07/16/01 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

BETTY JEAN GODDIN,

Plaintiff,

v. 3:11cv68/RV/CJK

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

_________________________________________________________________

ORDER

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

recommendation dated January 30, 2012. 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. Plaintiff’s application for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to

Justice Act (doc. 19) is GRANTED in the amount of $2,125.00, and the

Commissioner is ordered to pay that amount to plaintiff’s counsel. The 

Case 3:11-cv-00068-RV-CJK Document 22 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Commissioner will follow Astrue v. Ratliff, but must make prompt payment due, as

no showing of an outstanding federal debt has been made to date.

DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of March, 2012.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES JUDGE

Case No: 3:11cv68/RV/CJK

Case 3:11-cv-00068-RV-CJK Document 22 Filed 03/02/12 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.01





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 Geo Point Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Jeff Jensen, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial 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 the best of my knowledge and belief:





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





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











/s/ Jeff Jensen


Jeff Jensen


Principal Executive Officer


and Principal Financial Officer


August 20, 2012





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 16, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-30280

ROCK TUFARO, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE ORLEANS LEVEE DISTRICT; THADDEUS PETIT, Officer, CRAIG ROBINSON, Officer, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (USDC No. 02-CV-435-I)

_______________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The judgment of the district court is affirmed and the court’s denial of leave to amend is approved for reasons given by that court in its Order and Reasons of October 3, 2003. AFFIRMED.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO.: 1:11cr11/MP

RAUL PAGAN RODRIGUEZ

 /

ORDER OF REFERENCE

The court has been informed that the defendant in the above styled case

wishes to enter a guilty plea and consents to having the guilty plea proceedings

conducted by a United States Magistrate Judge. Pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) and Loc. R. 72.3, it is hereby

ORDERED that the above captioned criminal case be referred to the

Honorable Gary R. Jones, United States Magistrate Judge, to conduct all of the

proceedings required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

incident to a guilty plea and to make a recommendation to the District Judge

concerning acceptance or rejection of the guilty plea.

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

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cr-00011-MP-GRJ Document 89 Filed 10/25/11 Page 1 of 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 Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 of Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited (the “ Company ”) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “ Commission ”) on the date hereof (the “ Report ”) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Peter Steenkamp, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 results of operations of the Company.




Date: October 26, 2017





By: /s/ Peter Steenkamp


Peter Steenkamp


Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Commission or its staff upon request.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MICHAEL R. ZEIGLER,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:11cv134-SPM/WCS

FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION 

REVOCATION SPECIALIST ERIKA DAVIS, 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

SECRETARY WALTER A. MCNEIL, 

and WARDEN D.A. ELLIS,

Defendants.

 /

SECOND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, doc. 1, and after the initial review, I entered a report and

recommendation to dismiss this case for failure to state a claim. Doc. 6. Plaintiff has

now filed a motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint. Doc. 7. Plaintiff did not

submit his proposed amended complaint, nor does Plaintiff state any reason he wishes

to amend. Id. Plaintiff states only that a court should not deny Plaintiff a chance to

amend. Id. 

Plaintiff's initial complaint alleged that the Defendants "denied Plaintiff of liberty

without Due Process of law therefore violating his rights." Doc. 1, p. 11. Plaintiff's

Case 4:11-cv-00134-SPM-WCS Document 8 Filed 05/26/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

request for relief was in the nature of a habeas petition challenging Plaintiff's liberty,

despite the request for monetary damages. Because Plaintiff's case sought habeas

relief, and because ruling in Plaintiff's favor would imply the invalidity of his current

incarceration, it is bared by Heck v. Humphrey. Plaintiff has presented no reason to

permit an amended complaint. Plaintiff has failed to indicate how amending his

complaint would cure the deficiencies noted in the first report and recommendation, doc.

6. As amendment appears futile, the motion should be denied and this case dismissed.

RECOMMENDATION

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion

for leave to file an amended complaint, doc. 7, be DENIED and this case be

DISMISSED as previously recommended. 

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on May 26, 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. 4:11cv134-SPM/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00134-SPM-WCS Document 8 Filed 05/26/11 Page 2 of 2
```

                                                                     Exhibit 3.6

                            CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION
                                       OF
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                                 VOICENET, INC.

         Voicenet,  Inc., a  corporation  organized  and  existing  under and by
virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,

         DOES HEREBY CERTIFY: that a Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate
of  Incorporation  was filed with the Secretary of State of Delaware on March 3,
2000 and that said  Certificate  requires  correction  as  permitted by Sections
103(f) of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

         The  inaccuracy  or defect of said  Certificate  to be  corrected is as
follows:  It has been  discovered  that in Article Fourth the description of the
powers  of the  Board of  Directors  with  respect  to the  Preferred  Stock was
omitted. The following sets forth the corrected Article Fourth in its entirety:

                  "FOURTH:  The  total  number  of  shares  of stock  which  the
                  Corporation  shall have  authority to issue is  51,000,000  of
                  which  50,000,000  shall be shares of Common Stock,  par value
                  $.01 per share,  and  1,000,000  shall be shares of  Preferred
                  Stock, par value $.01 per share. The shares of Preferred Stock
                  may be  divided  into  such  number  of series as the Board of
                  Directors may determine.  The Board of Directors is authorized
                  to determine and alter the rights, preferences, privileges and
                  restrictions  granted to and imposed upon the Preferred  Stock
                  or any series  thereof  with  respect  to any wholly  unissued
                  series of Preferred  Stock, and to fix the number of shares of
                  any such series of Preferred  Stock.  The Board of  Directors,
                  within the limits and restrictions stated in any resolution or
                  resolutions  of the Board of Directors  originally  fixing the
                  number of shares  constituting  any  series,  may  increase or
                  decrease  (but not  below the  number of shares of any  series
                  subsequent to the issue of shares of that series."

                  IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned  sets his hand as of the
20th day of April, 2001.

                                              VOICENET, INC.

                                              By:     /s/ Alan Dawson
                                                 -----------------------------
                                              Name:    Alan Dawson
                                              Title:   Chief Executive Officer
```
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CANDIDA ROSE DAW,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:11cv96/RV/EMT

LOUANNE COWAN, ALISA FINCH,

and REBECCA WILLIAMS,

Defendants.

____________________________/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated September 27, 2013 (doc. 41). 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). 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. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of October, 2013.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EXHIBIT 32.1








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





The undersigned, Dror Svorai, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of InfoSpi, Inc., hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of InfoSpi, Inc. for quarter ended June 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Amended Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of InfoSpi, Inc.








DATE: April 25, 2011
By:
/s/Dror SvoraiName: Dror SvoraiTitle: Chief Executive Officer





By:
/s/Dror SvoraiName: Dror SvoraiTitle: 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 InfoSpi, Inc. and will be retained by InfoSpi, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute  a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, Organ Specific Innate Immunity.                    

*Date:*                         December 17, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         2 p.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Room 3146, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Kenneth E. Santora, PhD., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, NIH/NIAID/DHHS, Room 3146, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-2605,                         *ks216i@nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitation imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: November 26, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-5909 Filed 12-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2380

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Ricky Coppedge, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: December 30, 1997

 Filed: February 5, 1998

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Ricky Coppedge pleaded guilty to drug offenses, the district court1

sentenced him to 135 months imprisonment and four years supervised release on

October 12, 1995. Coppedge did not appeal. On October 1, 1996, the government

filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) (upon government

motion made within one year after imposition of sentence, district court may reduce
-2-

sentence to reflect defendant&s subsequent, substantial investigative or prosecutorial

assistance), which the district court granted; the court resentenced Coppedge to 84

months imprisonment and four years supervised release. On appeal, Coppedge&s

counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the

court should have departed farther, and moving to withdraw as appointed counsel;

Coppedge has also filed a pro se supplemental brief. We dismiss this appeal for lack

of jurisdiction. 

We conclude that Coppedge&s challenge to the extent of the district court&s

departure is unreviewable, because Coppedge is not appealing his sentence based on

any criteria listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (defendant may appeal sentence imposed in

violation of law, imposed as result of misapplication of Guidelines, which is upward

departure from Guidelines, or imposed for offense for which there is no Guideline and

which is plainly unreasonable). See United States v. McDowell, 117 F.3d 974, 977-78

(7th Cir. 1997) (appeal of extent of downward departure under Rule 35(b) is

unreviewable, because § 3742(a) provides no jurisdictional basis to consider such

appeal; listing cases in accord from Second, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and

Eleventh Circuits). But see United States v. McAndrews, 12 F.3d 273, 277-78 (1st Cir.

1993) (appeal of extent of downward departure; concluding order resolving Rule 35(b)

motion is not a sentence, and thus 28 U.S.C. § 1291 governs appeals from orders

granting or denying Rule 35(b) motions).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and grant defense

counsel&s motion to withdraw.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.