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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 10-23340-CIV-LENARD

MAGISTRATE JUDGE P.A. WHITE

TERRANCE MCCLOUD, :

Plaintiff, :

v. : REPORT RE TRANSFER

 TO CORRECT VENUE

WALTER MCNEIL, : 

Defendant(s). :

 

The plaintiff, Terrance McCloud filed a pro se civil rights

complaint alleging he is being provided with an inadequate diet at

Franklin Correctional Institution (“CI”).

Walter McNeil and the Department of Corrections are located in

Tallahassee, in the Northern District of Florida. The plaintiff is

confined at Franklin CI, located in the Northern District of

Florida, where the alleged violations took place.

 The appropriate venue provision in this case is 28 U.S.C.

§1391(b). Clark v. Harp, 737 F.Supp. 676 (D. D.C. 1990); Harley v.

Oliver, 400 F.Supp. 105 (W.D. Ark. 1975). That section provides in

relevant part that a case not based on diversity of citizenship

should be brought in the judicial district where any defendant

resides or where a substantial part of the events or omissions

giving rise to the claim occurred or a substantial part of property

that is the subject of the action is situated. Transfer under 28

U.S.C. §1404 includes the convenience of the parties and witnesses,

relative ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining

the attendance of witnesses and other practical factors that would

make the trial of the case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. See:
2

Stateline Power Corp. V Kremer, 404 F. Supp 2nd 1373 (US Dist. Fla.

2005). 

In the interests of justice and convenience of the parties and

witnesses, it is recommended that this case be transferred to the

United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a). 

Objections to this Report may be filed within fourteen days 

following receipt. 

Dated this 28th day of September, 2010.

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: TerranceL. McCloud, Pro Se

Franklin Correctional Institution

1760 Hwy 67 North

Carrabelle, FL 32322
Page 1 of 2

Case No. 4:11cv22-RH/CAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

COREY A. MCDOWELL BEY,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:11cv22-RH/CAS

OFFICER BLAIR, and

NURSE B. HENNING,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This prisoner civil-rights case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s 

first and second reports and recommendations, ECF Nos. 49 and 52, and the 

plaintiff’s filings in response, ECF Nos. 50, 51, and 53. I have reviewed de novo

the issues raised by the plaintiff’s filings. 

The plaintiff asserts he was beaten by other inmates, that the defendant 

correctional officer failed to intervene, and that the defendant nurse failed to 

provide medical care for the plaintiff’s injuries. The first report and 

recommendation correctly concludes that the case must be dismissed because the 

plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 

Case 4:11-cv-00022-RH-CAS Document 56 Filed 07/13/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:11cv22-RH/CAS

The plaintiff says he failed to exhaust because the defendant officer 

threatened to retaliate against the plaintiff if he disclosed the beating. But the 

plaintiff has tendered no evidence of this. More importantly, the plaintiff has 

affirmatively alleged that after the beating he was “immediately . . . transferred to 

[a] different institution.” ECF No. 51 at 9 ¶ 15. The plaintiff has provided no 

explanation of why he could not exhaust his administrative remedies from the new 

institution. Even more clearly, the plaintiff has tendered no evidence supporting 

any such claim.

IT IS ORDERED:

The first and second reports and recommendations are ACCEPTED and 

adopted as the court’s further opinion. The clerk must enter judgment stating, 

“The complaint is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies.” The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on July 12, 2012.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 4:11-cv-00022-RH-CAS Document 56 Filed 07/13/12 Page 2 of 2
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 on Form 10-Q of Soy Energy, LLC (the “Company”) for the quarter ended April 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Charles Sand, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify, 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 results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Charles SandCharles Sand, President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)Dated: June 14, 2011
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

BENJAMIN B. LITTLES,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv203/MCR/EMT

JOHN LILLY, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated November 23, 2010 (Doc. 16). 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. Plaintiff’s claims against John Lilly, Mr. Hutchinson, Derrick Yabui, Marcos

Ramirez, James Thomas, Dr. Angel Ortiz, Jaime Mejia, the “John Doe” Defendants at FPCPensacola, the “Jane Doe” Defendants at the Escambia County Jail, and the “John Doe”

Defendants at the Jackson County Jail are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state

a claim on which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and these

Defendants are DISMISSED from this action.

3. The clerk shall TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for

the Western District of Texas for disposition of Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining
Page 2 of 2

Defendants.

4. The clerk shall close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 2010.

M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 3:10cv203/MCR/EMT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWIN GOMEZ; EDWIN GOMEZVELIZ,

Petitioners,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent.

No. 20-72213

Agency Nos. A215-893-800

A215-893-802

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 7, 2021** 

San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and FRIEDLAND, Circuit

Judges.

Edwin Abel Gomez-Veliz and his son, Edwin Benedicto Gomez,

(collectively “Gomez”) petition the summary dismissal of their untimely appeal of

FILED

OCT 12 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
a final removal order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). We have

jurisdiction to review the dismissal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we review for an

abuse of discretion. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005). We

deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Gomez’s

appeal as untimely under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(G). Gomez did not dispute

that his appeal was late and offered no explanation to the BIA for the delay. The

BIA’s decision was therefore not based on a legally erroneous interpretation of its

regulations or “arbitrar[y], irrational[], or contrary to the law.” Zetino v. Holder,

622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010). 

We lack jurisdiction to consider Gomez’s claim that the BIA erroneously

failed to extend the appeal filing deadline given the “rare circumstances” of the

COVID-19 pandemic. Gomez neither raised this argument below, nor exhausted

his administrative remedies before the BIA. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (“A court may

review a final order of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all

administrative remedies available to the alien as of right . . . .”); Barron v.

Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting exhaustion is mandatory

and jurisdictional). 

PETITION DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.

2
# C_2010333EN.01000602.xml

| 10.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 333/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 333/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5953 — Reckitt Benckiser/SSL)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 333/04

On 25 October 2010, 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 32010M5953. 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 32010M5953. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JONTE’ JENKINS,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:11cv9/LAC/EMT

WALTER M. THOMAS, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). By order of this court dated

January 14, 2011, Plaintiff was given thirty (30) days in which to pay the filing fee or file a complete

application to proceed in forma pauperis (see Doc. 5). Plaintiff failed to respond to the order;

therefore, on February 24, 2011, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause, within

twenty-one (21) days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an order

of the court (Doc. 6). The time for compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed, and

Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis .

 Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an

order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 24th day of March 2011.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) 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. 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 (11th Cir.

1988).

Case No: 3:11cv9/LAC/EMT
Opinion filed Au gust 20, 20 09



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

___________ 

### No. 1 1- 09 -0 02 41 -CR

____ ____ __ RO GER DA LE BR ECH EEN , A ppellant

V. STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee
On App eal from the 42nd District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 23302A

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Th e jur y c on vic te d Ro g e r D a le B re c he e n o f m ur de r, fo un d b oth e nh a nc e me nt a lle g a tio ns to be true , and asse ssed his punishment at confineme nt for for ty -eig ht y ear s. We dismi ss for wa nt of jurisdiction. T h e t ri al court imposed the sentence in open cour t on March 26, 2009. Amotion for new trial was timely

filed. There fore , the not ice of appea l was due to filed on or be fore J une 24, 2009, ninety day s afte r the date the sentenc e wa s imposed in open court. T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.2. Appellant2

filed his notice of a

ppeal on July 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 , 120 day s after the date the sentenc e wa s imposed. A motion for extension of tim e has not be en filed in this court. T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.3. On J uly 27, 2009, the cler

k of this court wrote the par ties advising the m that it appea red that an appe al had not bee n timely perf ecte d. There has bee n no response to our J uly 27 letter. Ab se nt a time ly no tic e of a pp e a l or the g ra

nti ng of a tim e ly mot ion fo r e xten sio n o f t ime , th is
c o u rt d o e s n o t h a v e ju

r is d ic ti o n to e n te rta in an appeal. Sla ton v . S tat e , 981 S.W .2d 208, 209-10 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 98 ); Ol iv o v . S tat e , 9 18 S.W. 2d

51 9, 52 2- 24 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); Rodarte v. Sta te , 8 60 S.W. 2d

10 8, 10 9-1 0 (Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ); Sh utev . S tat e , 7 4 4 S. W. 2 d

9 6 , 9 7 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1988). Ther efor e, the a ppeal is dismissed for wa nt of jurisdiction.

PER C URI AM
Aug ust 20, 2009 Do not publish. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , a n d

S t r a n g e , J.
# C_2009191EN.01000302.xml

| 14.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5488 — Magna/Cadence Innovation)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 191/03

On 7 May 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 32009M5488. 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 32009M5488. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 68167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5909]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    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, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6a0119585b5c032a040302440d051c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ec879fdeddda85ac828584c28b839a">[email protected]</span></a>.

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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-72791

Agency No. A072-538-285

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Alejandro Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to

reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo due process claims. 

FILED

APR 20 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-72791

Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for

review.

Hernandez failed to raise, and therefore waived, any challenge to the BIA’s

denial of his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel for failure

to comply with the procedural requirements in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec.

637 (BIA 1988). See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2011) (a

petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in his or her opening brief).

Because Hernandez’s ineffective assistance claim was not successful, the

BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen, construed as a

motion based on new evidence, on the ground that Hernandez did not show that the

psychological evaluation could not have been obtained and presented at the time of

the merits hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (“A motion to reopen proceedings

shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board that evidence sought to be

offered is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or

presented at the former hearing.”). The BIA did not violate due process by not

further considering Hernandez’s hardship evidence after determining that it did not

meet the threshold regulatory requirements for reopening. See Lata v. INS, 204 
3 10-72791

F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due

process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
# C_2010219EN.01002001.xml

| 13.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 219/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 219/20

---

Communication concerning notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/180/10-182/10

2010/C 219/09

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is publishing a corrigendum to the following notices of open competitions for administrators (AD 7 and AD 8):

EPSO/AD/180/10—

Information systems security (INFOSEC)

Information systems security (INFOSEC)

EPSO/AD/181/10—

Competition law

Competition law

EPSO/AD/182/10—

Industrial economics

Industrial economics

The corrigendum is published in 23 languages in Official Journal C 219 A of 13 August 2010.

Further details can be found on the EPSO website: http://eu-careers.eu

---