alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010333EN.01000601.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.5993 — Securitas/Reliance Security Services/Reliance Security Services Scotland)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 333/03

On 9 November 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 32010M5993. 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 32010M5993. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

In re SLEP-TONE ENTERTAINMENT

CORP., consolidated cases. Case No. 5:11-cv-32-RS-CJK

_________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. 204). Pursuant 

to the Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), the claims against Defendant Tequila Mexico of 

Pensacola are DISMISSED without prejudice. 

ORDERED on July 20, 2012.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 205 Filed 07/20/12 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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Forest Service published a document the                         **Federal Register**                         of November 9, 2007, concerning request for comments on the proposed action for the Roosevelt/Duchesne and Flaming Gorge Ranger Districts Travel Management Plan. The document identified a 45-day comment period from the date of publication. The closing date corresponds with December 24, 2007. In order to avoid the scoping comment period closing during the holidays, we are extending the comment period to 60 days from the date of the original publication, which corresponds with January 8, 2008.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Kris Rutledge, 435-781-5196. In the                         **Federal Register**                         of November 9, 2007, in FR Doc. 72-217, on page 63548, in the first and second column correct the DATES caption to read:                    

# DATES:

                        The comment period on the proposed action will extend 60 days from the date of the Notice of Intent is published in the                         **Federal Register**                        . The draft environmental impact statement is expected July 2008 and the final environmental impact statement is expected November 2008.                    

      ( print page 67595)    
Dated: November 20, 2007.

Kevin B. Elliott,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 07-5874 Filed 11-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Case 3:10-cv-00378-MCR-CJK   Document 1   Filed 09/30/10   Page 1 of 6

Case 3:10-cv-00378-MCR-CJK   Document 1   Filed 09/30/10   Page 2 of 6

Case 3:10-cv-00378-MCR-CJK   Document 1   Filed 09/30/10   Page 3 of 6

Case 3:10-cv-00378-MCR-CJK   Document 1   Filed 09/30/10   Page 4 of 6

Case 3:10-cv-00378-MCR-CJK   Document 1   Filed 09/30/10   Page 5 of 6

Case 3:10-cv-00378-MCR-CJK   Document 1   Filed 09/30/10   Page 6 of 6
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0001310 13-DEC-2016 08:59 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         548,889
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,278,363
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,360,355
<PP&E>                                         278,779
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,451,159
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,022,320
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     10,000
<COMMON>                                        12,631
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,301,335
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,451,159
<SALES>                                     18,984,218
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,984,218
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,950,885
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             424,316
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                609,017
<INCOME-TAX>                                   182,769
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            426,248
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   426,248
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JOSHUA S. FRIEBEL and 

ELIZABETH F. FRIEBEL,

husband and wife,

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-120/RS-EMT

PARADISE SHORES OF BAY COUNTY,

LLC, a Florida limited liability company;

ROBERT E. BLACKERBY, an individual;

MAGNUM CAPITAL, LLC, a Florida limited

liability company; DURDEN ENTERPRISES

II, INC., a Delaware corporation; DURDEN

ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Florida limited

liability company; ESTATE OF KEDRICK

EARL DURDEN; MICHAEL EARL DURDEN,

as Personal Representative of the Estate of

Kedrick Earl Durden; and MH I, LLC, a Florida

limited liability company, 

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

This Order amends my previous order (Doc. 73). The correct dates are listed 

below, with changes underlined and in bold. 

It is ordered that the parties shall file an amended joint report not later than 

November 15, 2010, with dates consistent with a discovery deadline of March 25, 2011, 

and a jury trial on June 6, 2011 or June 20, 2011. 
ORDERED on November 12, 2010

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 131050 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 131050 

 COA: 265173 

Livingston CC: 02-012663-FC

DUANE THOMAS PEEVEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 21, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

d1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
EXHIBIT 13.2CERTIFICATION*(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, 2007 ofHarmony Gold Mining Company Limited (the “Company”) as filed with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Commission”) on the date hereof (the “Report”) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Frank Abbott,Interim Finance Director of the Company, certify, that:          (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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.December 7, 2007By: /s/ Frank Abbott
# C_2009305EN.01000701.xml

| 16.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/7

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 December 2009

2009/C 305/05

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4541 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,22 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4416 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89600 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,4635 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5123 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,4735 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,105 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 277,10 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7063 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1865 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2523 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1992 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6048 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5459 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,2735 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0183 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0283 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 688,69 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,8737 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,9286 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2800 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 777,64 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9636 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 67,167 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,9725 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,218 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5636 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,6052 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 67,8700 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4541

JPY

Japanese yen

130,22

DKK

Danish krone

7,4416

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89600

SEK

Swedish krona

10,4635

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5123

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,4735

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,105

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

277,10

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7063

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1865

RON

Romanian leu

4,2523

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1992

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6048

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5459

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,2735

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0183

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0283

KRW

South Korean won

1 688,69

ZAR

South African rand

10,8737

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,9286

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2800

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 777,64

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9636

PHP

Philippine peso

67,167

RUB

Russian rouble

43,9725

THB

Thai baht

48,218

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5636

MXN

Mexican peso

18,6052

INR

Indian rupee

67,8700

---

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

1

Source

---
Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 23    Filed 04/14/10   Page 1 of 7

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 23    Filed 04/14/10   Page 2 of 7

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 23    Filed 04/14/10   Page 3 of 7

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 23    Filed 04/14/10   Page 4 of 7

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 23    Filed 04/14/10   Page 5 of 7

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 23    Filed 04/14/10   Page 6 of 7

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 23    Filed 04/14/10   Page 7 of 7
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

CALLIE JEROME JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:11cv84-SPM/WCS

WACHOVIA BANK,

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a second amended

civil rights complaint against Defendant, Wachovia Bank. Doc. 5. Plaintiff alleges that

when she got out of prison in 2009, she tried to get her money from the bank but was

told she needed to access a web site, Floridatreasurehunt.com to get the rest of her

cash. Plaintiff contends she has not been successful with the website and the money is

missing. 

Plaintiff was previously advised that she must demonstrate that this Court has

subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Doc. 6. In particular, it was noted that Plaintiff

had not alleged the violation of federal law or a federal statute that was violated by the

Case 4:11-cv-00084-RS-WCS Document 8 Filed 06/01/11 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Bank. Furthermore, the order advised Plaintiff that because the Bank was not a "state

actor" for purposes of a civil rights action under § 1983, this Court did not have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Plaintiff now claims the bank violated a federal law (12 U.S.C. § 1829b) by not

demanding that the person withdrawing Plaintiff's money present proper identification. 

However, Plaintiff presents no facts to support that conclusory assertion. She has no

factual allegations as to when her money was taken or removed, she is unaware

whether any other person took her money, she fails to allege that any person at the

bank committed any wrong doing, and even fails to clearly state how much money is

missing. 

Further leave to amend should not be provided as this Court lacks jurisdiction

over the Bank in a civil rights action, and Plaintiff fails to present facts upon which to

determine whether any cause of action could be pursued in this court. The complaint

fails to state a claim against the Bank and presents no allegations of wrong doing by the

Bank. This case must be dismissed. 

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

amended complaint, doc. 7, be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted and for lack of jurisdiction.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 1, 2011.

 S/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No. 4:11cv84-SPM/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00084-RS-WCS Document 8 Filed 06/01/11 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

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. 4:11cv84-SPM/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00084-RS-WCS Document 8 Filed 06/01/11 Page 3 of 3
# ourtF)**Court of** **Js>an Antonio,** **June 10,2013** **NO.04-13-00271-CR Lilnifty** **General WILSON,** **Appellant v.** **The STATE** **of Texas,** **Appellee From** **the 227th** **Judicial District** **Court, Bexar** **County, Texas** **Trial Court** **No. 2012CR8462** **Honorable Philip** **A. Kazen,** **Jr., Judge** **Presiding**

### ORDER**Appellant's court-appointed** **attorney has** **filed brief** **and motion** **to withdraw** **pursuant to** 

### Anders**v. California,** **386 U.S.** **738 (1967),** **in which** **he asserts** **there are no** **meritorious issues** **to raise** **on appeal.** **Counsel certifies** **he has** **served copies** **of the** **brief and** **motion on** **appellant, has** **informed appellant** **of his** **right to** **review the** **record and** **file his** **own brief,** **and has** **explained to** **appellant the** **procedure for** **obtaining the** **record. See** **Nichols v.** **Stale, 954** **S.W.2d 83** **(Tex.**

### App.—San**Antonio 1997,** **no writ);** **Bruns v.** **State, 924** **S.W.2d 176,** **177 n.l** **(Tex. App.—** **San Antonio** **1996, no** **writ). If** **appellant desires** **to file** **pro se** **brief, we** **order that** **he do** **so on** **or before July** **25, 2013.** **If appellant** **files timely** **pro se** **brief, the** **State may** **file responsive** **brief no** **later than** **thirty days** **after appellant's** **pro se** **brief is** **filed in** **this court.** **Alternatively, if** **appellant does** **not file** **a timely pro** **se brief,** **the State** **may file** **brief in** **response to** **counsel's brief** **no later** **than August** **26,2013. We** **further order** **the motion** **to withdraw** **filed by** **appellant's counsel** **is held** **in abeyance** 

### pending**further order** **of the** **court. See** **Penson v.** **Ohio, 488** **U.S. 75,** **80-82, 109** **S. Ct.** **346, 102** **L. Ed.2d** **300 (1988)** **(holding that** **motion to** **withdraw should** **not be** **ruled on** **before appellate** **court independently** **reviews the** **record to** **determine whether** **counsel's evaluation** **that the** **appeal is** **frivolous is** **sound); Schulman** **v. State,** **252 S.W.3d** **403, 410-11** **(Tex. Crim.** **App. 2008)** **(same). We** **order the** **clerk of** **this court** **to serve** **copy of** **this order** **on appellant,** **his counsel,** **the attorney** **for the** **State, and** **the clerk** **of the** **trial court.**
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MITCHEL MACHADO,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00530-MP -WCS

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOM ENFORCEMENT,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 7, Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge, which recommends that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

The Plaintiff was directed to file an amended petition but did not. The Magistrate filed the

Report on April 1, 2011, Plaintiff has filed no objection, and the time to do so has passed. Upon

consideration, the Court agrees with the Magistrate that the case should be dismissed. 

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 7) is ADOPTED and

incorporated herein, and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of May, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00530-MP-WCS Document 8 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ROBERT LEE HINSON, JR.,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 3:10cv480/RV/MD

KENNETH S. TUCKER,

Respondent.

O R D E R

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

recommendation dated October 21, 2011. The 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), 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. The petition (doc. 1) is DENIED.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

4. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of November, 2011.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00480-RV-MD Document 54-1 Filed 11/04/11 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DANIEL BROWN,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-67-MP -GRJ

SECRETARY, DEPT.

OF CORRECTIONS, 

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 6, Respondent’s motion for extension of

time to respond to Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. Upon due

consideration, it is ORDERED:

That the motion for extension of time, Doc. 6, is GRANTED. Respondent shall

file a response to the motions on or before September 19, 2011. Petitioner

shall have until October 19, 2011 to file a reply, if any.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18 day of August 2011. th

 

s/ Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-00067-MP-GRJ Document 8 Filed 08/18/11 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5317 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5317

     To repeal section 2141 of the Revised Statutes to remove the 
     prohibition on certain alcohol manufacturing on Indian lands.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 2018

Ms. Herrera Beutler (for herself, Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. 
 Heck, and Mr. Cole) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To repeal section 2141 of the Revised Statutes to remove the 
     prohibition on certain alcohol manufacturing on Indian lands.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN ALCOHOL MANUFACTURING ON 
              INDIAN LANDS.

    Section 2141 of the Revised Statutes (25 U.S.C. 251) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```