alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WHITEHURST v. BATES

No. 364P82.

Case below: 57 N.C. App. 372.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 25 August 1982.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

F.A., et al., 

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO. 4:11cv198/RS-WCS

MIKE HANSEN, in his official capacity 

As Acting Director of the Agency for 

Persons with Disabilities, et al., 

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Joint Report to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Regarding Parties 

Proposed Deadlines (Doc. 35). The parties shall file an amended joint report not 

later than October 11, 2011, with deadlines and other requirements consistent with 

this order. 

1. A Non-jury trial set for June 18, 2012, beginning at 8:30 a.m., in 

Panama City, Florida. 

2. A discovery deadline of April 14, 2012. 

3. A deadline for filing potentially dispositive motions of fourteen (14) 

days after the discovery deadline. 

4. Mediation completed on or before a date twenty-eight (28) days after 

the discovery deadline. 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 36 Filed 09/27/11 Page 1 of 2
5. Defendant’s request to exchange information required by Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(a)(1) of October 21, 2011. 

6. The number of interrogatories limited to 50. The deadline for 

completion of interrogatories is the same as the discovery deadline, 

April 14, 2012.

7. The number of requests for admission limited to 50. The deadline 

for completion of requests for admission is the same as the discovery 

deadline, April 14, 2012. 

8. Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures of expert witnesses and their opinions by 

Plaintiffs of not later than March 19, 2012, and by Defendants of not 

later than April 2, 2012. 

9. The final date to join parties or amend pleadings of November 1, 

2011. 

ORDERED on September 27, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 36 Filed 09/27/11 Page 2 of 2
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

# AGENCY:

Employment and Training Administration, DOL.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Secretary of Labor signed the annual certifications under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, 26 U.S.C. 3301*et seq.,*                         thereby enabling employers who make contributions to state unemployment funds to obtain certain credits against their liability for the federal unemployment tax. By letter the certifications were transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury. The letter and certifications are printed below.                    

Dated: Signed in Washington, DC, November 1, 2007.

Emily Stover DeRocco,

Assistant Secretary of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.

      ( print page 62875)          ( print page 62876)          ( print page 62877)          ( print page 62878)          ( print page 62879)    

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M

[FR Doc. 07-5550  Filed 11-6-07; 8:45 am]

                BILLING CODE 4510-30-C                      ( print page 62880)
#### STATE v. JEFFERIES and STATE v. PERSON

No. 174 PC.

Case below: 41 N.C. App. 95.

Application by defendant Person for further review denied 28 June 1979.
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 6727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-671]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD

Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting

Time and Date: 9 a.m. (EST). February 20, 2007.

Place:  4th Floor Conference Room, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC.

Status:  Parts will be open to the public and parts closed to the 
public.

Matters To Be Considered: 

Parts Open to the Public

1. Approval of the minutes of the January 16, 2007 Board member meeting
2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director
3. Dept. of Labor Reports
    a. Clintwood Call Center
    b. Pittsburgh Backup/Recovery Site
4. Dept. of Labor/KPMG Annual Audit Report
5. Annual Participant Statements
6. Communications and Operations Report

Parts Closed to the Public

7. Personnel

Contact Person for More Information: Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, 
Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Dated: February 9, 2007.
Thomas K. Emswiler,
Secretary to the Board, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 07-671 Filed 2-9-07; 11:26 am]
BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
```
Case 3:11-cr-00013-MCR   Document 311   Filed 07/21/11   Page 1 of 7

Case 3:11-cr-00013-MCR   Document 311   Filed 07/21/11   Page 2 of 7

Case 3:11-cr-00013-MCR   Document 311   Filed 07/21/11   Page 3 of 7

Case 3:11-cr-00013-MCR   Document 311   Filed 07/21/11   Page 4 of 7

Case 3:11-cr-00013-MCR   Document 311   Filed 07/21/11   Page 5 of 7

Case 3:11-cr-00013-MCR   Document 311   Filed 07/21/11   Page 6 of 7

Case 3:11-cr-00013-MCR   Document 311   Filed 07/21/11   Page 7 of 7
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00210-CV

Jeffrey (Tre) Krueger, Appellant

v.

CRU Energy, Inc.; Michael Torres; Jorge Zuniga; and Green Alt. Corporation, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-11-001680, HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The clerk’s record in this appeal is overdue to be filed. This Court’s clerk sent a letter

dated May 5, 2012, to appellant Jeffery (Tre) Krueger requesting that he make arrangements to pay

for the clerk’s record and that he file a status report regarding this appeal with this Court. Krueger

was requested to file a status report on or before May 15, 2012, or risk dismissal of his appeal.

May 15, 2012, has passed. The clerk’s record has not been filed, and Krueger has not

filed a status report with this Court. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b).
_____________________________________________

J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: July 20, 2012

2
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

(Filed: November 19, 2015 )

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

TAHLIA SEPCTOR, M.D.

, *

* No. 15

- 401

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Special Master Hamilton

- Fieldman

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Ruling on E ntitlement; Conceded;

* Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder I njury

Respondent. * Re lated to Vaccine Administration

* ( SIRVA )

. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Jack D. Hull, II

, Goldsmith & Hull

, Northridge, CA

, for P etitioner.

Julia McInerny , United States Department o f Justice, Washington, D.C., for R espondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On April 21, 2015

, Tahlia Spector, M.D., (“P etitioner”) filed a petition for compensation

under the National Vaccine Injury Compens ation Program (“the Program”)

. 2 Petitioner alleged

that a n influenza (“flu”) vaccination she received on September 19, 2013, caused her to suffer

from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”)

.

On November 13 , 2015 , R espondent file d a report pursuant to Vaccine Rule 4(c) in

wh ich she concedes that P etitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Report,

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the

undersigned intends to post this decision on the w ebsite of the United States Court of Federal

Claims, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002 § 205, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2006). In

accordance with the Vaccine Rules, each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of

any information furnish ed by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in

substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the

disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. ” Vaccine Rule

18(b). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a

proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material

fits within the requirements of that provision, s uch material will be deleted from public access.

2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42

U.S.C. §§ 300aa

- 10 et seq

. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereafter, individual

section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.2

ECF No. 21. Specifically, R espondent agrees that Petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with

SIRVA

. Id. at 7

. Based on a review of the medical records, Respondent concludes that

P etitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. Id.

A special master may determine whether a p etitioner is entitled to compensation based

upon the record. A hearing is not required. §300aa

- 13; Vaccine Rule 8(d). In light of

R espondent’s concession and a review of the record, the unders igned finds that P etitioner is

entitled to compensation. This matter shall now proceed to the damages phase.

I T IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Lisa Hamilton

- Fieldman

Lisa Hamilton

- Fieldman

Special Master
# C_2010213EN.01001602.xml

| 6.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/16

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5877 — Geodis/Giraud)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 213/06

On 14 July 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 French 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 32010M5877. 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 32010M5877. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# C_2011096EN.01001101.xml

| 29.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/11

---

Call for proposals under the 2011 Ideas work programme of the seventh EC framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities

2011/C 96/07

Notice is hereby given of the launch of a call for proposals under the 2011 Ideas work programme of the seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013).

Proposals are invited for the following call. Call deadlines and budget are given in the call text, which is published on the CORDIS and the Participant Portal websites.

Ideas work programme

Ideas work programme

| Call title | The ERC Proof of Concept Grant |
| --- | --- |
| Call identifier | ERC-2011 PoC |

Call title

The ERC Proof of Concept Grant

Call identifier

ERC-2011 PoC

This call for proposals relates to the work programme revised by Commission Decision C(2011) 1848 of 24 March 2011.

This call for proposals relates to the work programme revised by Commission Decision C(2011) 1848 of 24 March 2011.

Information on the modalities of the call, the work programme, and the guidance for applicants on how to submit proposals is available through the relevant European Commission websites:

| | http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm?fuseaction=UserSite.FP7CallsPage and |
| --- | --- |

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm?fuseaction=UserSite.FP7CallsPage and

| | http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/appmanager/participants/portal |
| --- | --- |

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/appmanager/participants/portal

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

BRANCH BANKING & TRUST CO.,

a North Carolina banking corporation, 

as successor in interest to Colonial Bank

by asset acquisition from the FDIC

as receiver for Colonial Bank, 

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:11-cv-110/RS-EMT

T. HENRY DEVELOPMENT CO., L.L.C.,

a Florida limited liability company; and

THOMAS HENRY,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

UORDER

Before me is Defendants’ Motion to Remand (Doc. 21) and Plaintiff’s Opposition

to Defendants’ Motion to Remand (Doc. 22). 

The ability to remand an action is premised on the action having been previously 

removed from state court to federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447. Remand is to “send a 

case or claim back to the court or tribunal from which it came for some further action . . . 

Cf. Removal.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1071 (Abridged 8th ed. 2005). 

Here, this case was initiated in this court and did not originate elsewhere. Because 

jurisdiction is proper, See Doc. 20, the case will remain in federal court. 

U

Defendant’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 21) is DENIED. 

 

Case 3:11-cv-00110-RS-EMT Document 23 Filed 05/11/11 Page 1 of 2
ORDERED on May 11, 2011.

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:11-cv-00110-RS-EMT Document 23 Filed 05/11/11 Page 2 of 2
# C_2010349EN.01000401.xml

| 22.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/4

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

2010/C 349/03

Image

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Luxembourg

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Luxembourg

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the Community providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country: Luxembourg

Subject of commemoration: The 50th anniversary of the appointment by the Grand-Duchess Charlotte of her son Jean as ‘lieutenant-représentant’

Description of the design: The coin depicts on the right hand of its inner part the effigy of His Royal Highness, the Grand-Duke Henri, looking to the left, and superimposed on the effigies of the Grand-Duke Jean and the Grand-Duchess Charlotte. The text ‘LËTZEBUERG’ is depicted above the three effigies. The year-date ‘2011’, flanked by the mintmark and the Mintmaster mark, appears above. The name of the Royal Highness is depicted below the respective effigy.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Volume of issuance: 1,4 million coins

Date of issue: January 2011

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1-30 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52-55).

2

---
1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosing controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b.
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluations; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially
affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over
financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the
audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.
  By:
    /s/ Graham BriggsGraham BriggsChief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40529

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN MANUEL RAMIREZ-VILLALZANA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:15-CR-847-1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Manuel Ramirez-Villalzana appeals his 46-month, withinguidelines sentence for illegal reentry, 8 U.S.C. § 1326, asserting that the 

district court erroneously applied a 16-level “crime of violence” enhancement, 

under former U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), based on his prior Texas convictions 

for burglary of a habitation. The enhancement was improper, RamirezVillalzana contends, because the Texas burglary statute, Texas Penal Code 

 

* 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

May 18, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40529 Document: 00513997491 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2017
No. 16-40529

2

§ 30.02(a), does not categorically define a “generic” burglary of a dwelling and 

is not divisible in light of Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016). We 

review the district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. 

See United States v. Calderon-Pena, 383 F.3d 254, 256 (5th Cir. 2004).

In Mathis, the Supreme Court explained that the modified categorical 

approach may be used to distinguish only between alternative elements of a 

statutory offense, not alternative means of satisfying a single element. 136 S. 

Ct. at 2249-50. Whether the district court erred thus turns on whether, in light

of Mathis, § 30.02(a)’s three subsections constitute elements or means. While 

the instant appeal was pending, we concluded that § 30.02(a) is a divisible, 

elements-based statute. See United States v. Uribe, 838 F.3d 667, 669-71 (5th 

Cir. 2016). Consequently, “the modified categorical approach applies to 

determine which of the provisions of § 30.02(a) was the basis of [RamirezVillalzana’s] conviction[s].” Id. at 671.

Our review of the permissible record documents reveals that RamirezVillalzana’s prior convictions were based on § 30.02(a)(1) and were therefore 

“generic” burglaries. See United States v. Conde-Castaneda, 753 F.3d 172, 176 

(5th Cir. 2014); see United States v. Constante, 544 F.3d 584, 585 (5th Cir. 

2008). Accordingly, the district court properly applied the 16-level “crime of 

violence” enhancement.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-40529 Document: 00513997491 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2017