alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J U A N X I CA RA - CO TO C, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 10- 71134 A ge nc yN o. A 097- 762- 975 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 6, 2012 ** B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , R E IN H A R D T , an dT A S H IM A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Jua n X i c ar a - C ot oc , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of G ua t e m a l a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of the B oar d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s appe a l f r om the i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w que s t i ons of 

# FI LED MA R 14 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 72915

law d e n o v o , C er ez o v. Mukasey , 5 1 2 F .3 d1 1 6 3 , 1 1 6 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) , e x c e p t to the e xt e nttha tde f

e r e nc e i s ow e d t o the B I A ’ s de t e rm i na t i on of the gove rni ng s ta tu te s an dr e g u la tio n s , S im e o n o vv . A s h c r o ft , 3 7 1 F .3 d5 3 2 , 5 3 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . W e r e v ie w f

o rs ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e f a c tu a l f in d in g s . Zeh a t

ye v. G o n za les, 453 F . 3d 1182 , 1 1 8 4 - 8 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . W e d e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . S ub st ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s f i nd i ng thatX i cara -C ot oc fa i l ed to e s tab lis h th a t h e w a s o rw o u ldb e p e r s e c u te do n a c c o u n t o f ap r o te c te dg r o u n d . See B arri os v. H

older , 5 8 1 F .3 d8 4 9 , 8 5 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ; Sa ntos-L em us v. Mukasey , 542 F . 3d 738, 744- 46 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( appl i c ant ’ s pr opos e d s oc i a l gr oup of y oung S a l va dor an m e n w ho r e s i s tgang vi ol e nc e l a c ks both part i c ul ar i tya nd so ci al v i si b i l i ty) . A cc ordi ng l y, X i cara -C ot oc’ s a sy l um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al c la im s f a il. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JAMES DODD

VS CASE NO. 3:10CV299-WS

WINDHAM PROFESSIONALS, INC.,

JUDGMENT

This action is dismissed with prejudice consistent with the plaintiff’s Notice of

Dismissal.

 November 18, 2010

SHEILA HURST-RAYBORN

ACTING CLERK OF COURT

s/David L Thomas

DATE Deputy Clerk: David Thomas

Case 3:10-cv-00299-WS-EMT Document 8 Filed 11/18/10 Page 1 of 1
_ .,. 

HonCTom F. Coleman, Jr. 

County ‘Att6mey 

Angellna Cdurity 

Lufkln, Texas 

Dear Sir; 

O@l.ni@i’No. -O-327- - 

Re: IMPease Pn deputy 1 s-salary 

&id PppPoval by auditor -where 

not provided for in budget. 

We acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 

9th and wl,sh to thank you for the enclosure thereto attached. 

Originally, you submitted two questions for our oplnion but we note from the letter -and copy of an order .of the 

Commissioners Court attached that the question of the new Ec$- 

missioners’ Court’s refusal to approve the raise in iala 

the chief deputy county clerk voted to begin January 1, 1 7 39 

and made by order prior thereto, has become moot in that s&Id 

salary increase appears to have been approved and acted upotr. 

Ro doubt, the questlon still has a bearing on the 

matter now up for consideration in your county and which we 

belleve is covered by the following question taken ‘from the 

facts submltt edr 

Where the Commissioners’ Court votes an 

approval of, or raises the salary of the county 

clerk* s chief deputy in January Andy refuses to 

change the budget to take care of this increase 

In salary,~should the county .auditor refuse.to 

issue a warrant to cover same?” 

We respectfully call your attentlon to an opinion, 

No. C-07, written by this Department dated January 6, 1939, 

and addressed to Hon. J. D. Looney, bounty Auditor, Boston, 

Texas, a copy of which is hereto attached. 

In view of the above opinions as it might apply to 

your problem, it is the opinion of this Department that only 

In cases where the finances of the county clearly will not 

permit and the auditor has legal grounds upon which to base 

his refusal to pay such,lncrease voted in a deputy’s salary 
Hon. Tom F. Coleman, Jr., page 2 (C-327) 

outside the limits as fixed in the budget would the auditor 

be authorized to refuse such payment. 

Very truly yours 

ATTORNEY GENISRRAL OF TEXAS 

By /s/ Wm. J. R. King 

Wm. J. R. King, Assistant 

WmKrAWtwb 

APPROWD: 

/s/ Gerald C. Mann 

ATTORHMGENERALOF TEXAS 

F
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

GARY C. QUILLING,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:10cv404-WS/CAS

DAVID W. CLARK, Inspector,

et al.,

Defendants.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

THIRD REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

98) docketed May 23, 2012. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendants,

Pickles and Hall, be dismissed from the action. The plaintiff has filed objections (doc.

101) to the report and recommendation.

Upon review of the record in light of the plaintiff's objections, the court 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. 98) is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

Case 4:10-cv-00404-WS-CAS Document 102 Filed 06/25/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. The defendants, Hall and Pickles, are DISMISSED without prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of June , 2012.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No 4:10cv404-WS/CAS

Case 4:10-cv-00404-WS-CAS Document 102 Filed 06/25/12 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE v. PERRY SMITH, JR.

(Filed 20 October, 1965.)

Appeal by defendant from *Pless, J.,*May, 1965 Session, Caldwell Superior Court.

In this criminal prosecution the defendant was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced for the larceny of a radio and a set of wrenches of a value less than $200.00. The defendant appealed.

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

*Seila, Wilson and Palmer by W. C. Palmer for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant relies for a new trial upon two assignments of error: .(1) That the court erred in permitting the investigating officer to testify that the truck tracks near the scene of the theft indicated the vehicle had been stuck in the mud and in his opinion the driver had attempted to get out without calling a wrecker. (2) The defendant’s incriminating admissions to the investigating officer should have been ■ excluded.

If we concede the officer should not have been permitted to express the opinion that the driver had attempted to get the truck out of the mud without calling a wrecker, the admission was rendered harmless by the testimony of the defendant that his truck became stuck in the mud, and failing to get it out, he called a wrecker.

With respect to the incriminating admissions to the investigating officer, the record fails to disclose any reason why they should not be admissible as free and voluntary.

No error.
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cr19-RH/WCS

GODFREY ONUGHA,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER ON IMPROPER ADVICE REGARDING

MAXIMUM TERM OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

On May 27, 2010, the defendant Dr. Godfrey Onugha pled guilty to

violating 18 U.S.C. § 2243(b), which makes it a crime for a person employed at a

federal prison to engage in a sexual act with someone under his custodial,

supervisory, or disciplinary authority. During the plea colloquy, Dr. Onugha was

advised that he faces a maximum term of 15 years in prison, a maximum term of

three years of supervised release, a maximum fine of $250,000, and a special

monetary assessment of $100. As it turns out, Dr. Onugha was advised incorrectly

about the maximum term of supervised release. 

 A violation of § 2243(b) is a class C felony because it carries a maximum
Page 2 of 3

term of 15 years in prison. See 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3). A class C felony

ordinarily carries a three-year maximum term of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(b)(2). But an exception applies for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2243. A

defendant who violates § 2243 must be sentenced to at least a five-year term of

supervised release and may be sentenced to a life term. See id. §3583(k). 

So that Dr. Onugha may be advised correctly,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Dr. Onugha’s attorney must advise him by June 15, 2010, that this

order has been entered and that the maximum term of supervised

release that may be imposed in this case is life. 

2. Dr. Onugha may move to withdraw his guilty plea based on the

incorrect advice on the maximum term of supervised release. Any

such motion must be filed by June 22, 2010. If such a motion is filed,

the clerk must promptly set it for hearing.

3. If Dr. Onugha does not elect to move to withdraw the guilty plea, his

attorney must file by June 22, 2010, a notice confirming that the

attorney has complied with paragraph 1 and that Dr. Onugha does not

wish to withdraw the plea. 

4. A hearing on this issue will be set promptly on either side’s request. 

Case No: 4:10cr19-RH/WCS
Page 3 of 3

SO ORDERED on May 29, 2010.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge 

Case No: 4:10cr19-RH/WCS
# C_2009237EN.01000301.xml

| 2.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5619 — Bidvest/Nowaco Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 237/02

On 25 September 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5619. 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 32009M5619. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
**                                                                                                                       Exhibit13.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the AnnualReport on Form 20-F of DRDGOLD Limited (the "Company") for the fiscalyear ended June 30, 2018, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the "Report"), Daniel Johannes Pretorius, asChief 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 Act2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1)                      the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                      the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Daniel Johannes Pretorius

By:       Daniel Johannes Pretorius

Title:    Chief Executive Officer

Date:    October 31, 2018

 

 

 

 

----
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

LESTER STEVEN GLENN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:09cv296/RH/MD

WALTER MCNEIL, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________________________________________

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Plaintiff

commenced this action on September 1, 2009 by filing a civil rights complaint under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (doc. 1) and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (doc.

2). On September 14, 2009, the court entered an order finding plaintiff’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis deficient, because plaintiff failed to provide a printout

reflecting transactions in his inmate trust account for the 6-month period preceding

the filing of his complaint. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff was ordered to correct the deficiency

within thirty (30) days, or in the alternative, pay the full $350.00 filling fee within the

same time period. (Id.).

After receiving no response from plaintiff, this court entered an order on

October 27, 2009 directing plaintiff to show cause within twenty (20) days why this

case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court (doc.

6). To date, plaintiff has not responded.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That this case be dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to

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

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

At Pensacola, Florida, this 18 day of December, 2009. th

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed

within fourteen days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that

may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does

not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon all other parties. Failure to

object may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. §

636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11 Cir. 1988). th

Case No: 5:09cv296/RH/MD
Order entered June 17, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01360-CV

HIGH REV POWER, L.L.C., Appellant

V.

MASSIMO MOTOR SPORTS, LLC, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-07411-D

ORDER

We REINSTATE this appeal.

In an order dated May 18, 2015, the Court ordered the Honorable Ken Tapscott, 

Presiding Judge of the County Court at Law No. 4, to conduct a hearing and make findings 

regarding missing exhibits. On June 12, 2015, the Court received the trial court’s findings. The 

trial court found the exhibits have been lost without appellant’s fault and the lost exhibits are 

necessary to the appeal’s resolution. Judge Tapscott requests additional time so that he can 

conduct a further hearing regarding whether the missing exhibits can be replaced by agreement

or, if not, whether they can be replaced with a copy determined by the trial court to accurately 

duplicate with reasonable certainty the original exhibits. We GRANT the Judge Tapscott’s 

request for additional time. 
We ORDER Judge Tapscott to conduct a hearing, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS of the date 

of this order and make findings as to whether:

1. the lost or destroyed exhibits can be replaced by agreement of the parties; and

2. if the lost or destroyed exhibits cannot be replaced by agreement of the parties, 

they can be replaced with a copy determined by the trial court to accurately 

duplicate with reasonable certainty the original exhibits.

 We ORDER John Warren, Dallas County Clerk, to file, WITHIN FORTY-FIVE 

DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings

of fact from the hearing.

We ORDER Coral Hough, to file, WITHIN FORTY-FIVE DAYS of the date of this 

order, the reporter’s record from the hearing.

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order by electronic 

transmission to Judge Tapscott, John Warren, Coral Hough, and counsel for all parties.

We ABATE this appeal to allow the trial court to conduct the hearing. The appeal will 

be reinstated in forty-five days or when the Court receives the requested supplemental clerk’s 

record, whichever occurs sooner.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

KELLY WHISBY,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv172/RS-EMT

JOHN DOES 1-2, et al,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Magistrate Judge’s Order, Report and Recommendation 

(Doc. 5). Plaintiff has not filed objections.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Order, Report and Recommendation is adopted

and incorporated in this Order.

2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(g), this case is dismissed without prejudice

to Plaintiff’s filing a new complaint which must be accompanied by

payment of the full 350.00 filing fee.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on September 22, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

RANDOLPH DANDRY,

Petitioner,

v. Case No.: 3:10cv351/MCR/MD

KENNETH S. TUCKER,

Respondent.

_________________________________/

ORDER

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

Recommendation dated December 9, 2011 (doc. 32). Petitioner 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 and petitioner’s timely filed

objections (doc. 36), 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. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (doc. 19) is GRANTED.

3. The 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1), challenging

the conviction and sentence in State of Florida v. Dandry in the Circuit Court of Okaloosa

County, Florida, case no. 03-698, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the clerk is

directed to close the file.

Case 3:10-cv-00351-MCR-MD Document 37 Filed 03/22/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

4. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of March, 2012.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 3:10cv351MCR/MD

Case 3:10-cv-00351-MCR-MD Document 37 Filed 03/22/12 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of  FREIGHT  MANAGEMENT  CORP.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended  March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Gerald
Lewis,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that:

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/ Gerald Lewis
                                    --------------------------------------------
Date: May 8, 2008                   Gerald Lewis
                                    Secretary Treasurer, and Principal Financial
                                    and Accounting Officer
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 15, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30206

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DERRICK D. MORRIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 02-CR-50068-ALL

--------------------

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Derrick D. Morris appeals his sentence following a guilty-plea

conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Morris argues that the

district court erred in departing upward on the basis of death

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.1.

The provision relied upon by Morris applies when a defendant

used or possessed a firearm “in connection with the commission or
No. 03-30206

-2-

attempted commission of another offense.” U.S.S.G. §

2K2.1(c)(1)(B). Morris has not argued that he used or possessed

the assault rifle in relation to an underlying offense, thereby

triggering the clause. See id., comment. (n.14). Section 2K2.1

does not take into account the factor of a resultant death if the

firearm-possession offense was not related to an underlying

offense. See § 5K2.0. Furthermore, the guideline specifically

provides that the district court may depart upward on the basis of

death. § 2K2.1, comment. (n.16); see also § 5K2.1, p.s.

Regardless whether this court applies a de-novo or an abuse-ofdiscretion standard of review, we affirm the sentence imposed by

the district court because it did not err in departing upward on

the basis of death. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e)(4); United States v.

Semsak, No. 02-30153, 2003 WL 21730615, at *1 (9th Cir. Jul. 28,

2003); United States v. Camejo, 333 F.3d 669, 675 (6th Cir. 2003);

United States v. Tarantola, 332 F.3d 498, 500 (8th Cir. 2003); but

see United States v. Jones, 332 F.3d 1294, 1299-1300 (10th Cir.

2003) (applying de novo standard of review to an appeal pending as

of April 30, 2003).

AFFIRMED.