alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
J

- S25035

- 15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 RASHEED NIFAS, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant

v. JOHN E. WETZEL, SHIR LEY MORE SMELA, DANIEL BURNS, JEFFREY WITHERITER, GERLAD R OZUM, DANIEL GEHLEMANN, JOSEPH MA ZURKIEWICZ, ALLEN JOSEPH, MELISA HAINSWORTH, JOSEPH BIANCONI, Appellees No. 1832 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered October 30 , 2014 in the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County Civil Division at No.: 381 Civil 2014

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and PLATT, J. *
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PLATT, J.: FILED APRIL 28, 2015 Appellant, Rasheed Nifas , appeals pro se from the order dismissing his complaint with prejudice. He raises issues that are in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court. Therefore, we transfer to that

Court. On June 20, 2014, Appellant initiated this civil rights acti on against Appellees, employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. He alleged a violation of his constitutional rights based on retaliation, specifically, not returning him to general population, for filing a grievance

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.J

- S25035

- 15

- 2

-

related to Appellees req uiring him to work for free in conjunction with his removal from the restricted release list. Appellees responded by filing preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer. On October 30, 2014, the trial court sustained the objections and dismissed th e complaint with prejudice. Appellant timely appealed.
It is well

- settled that “[e]ven when neither party has raised the issue of jurisdiction, this Court may, sua sponte, determine whether retention of jurisdiction is appropriate, or whether the matter s hould be transferred to
the Commonwealth Court.” Commonwealth v. Reed , 696 A.2d 199, 200 (Pa .Super. 1997), transferred to , 713 A.2d 150 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (citation omitted); see Pa.R.A.P. 751(a), 752(a). Civil rights claims against prison officials are properly heard in the
Commonwealth Court. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 762(a)(1)(i). Here, Appellant identified the Commonwealth Court as having jurisdiction, but apparently misfiled his notice of appeal. ( See Appel lant’s Brief, at 1; Appellant’s Application to Transfer, 3/30/15, at 1

- 2). Furthermore, the trial court acknowledged that “[t]his matter is . . . on an appeal to the Commonwealth Court . . . .” (Trial Court 1925(a) Opinion, 1/09/15, at 1). Accordingly, we transfer this matter to the Commonwealth Court in accordance with Appellant’s request. See Reed , supra at 200.J

- S25035

- 15

- 3

-

Appeal transferred to the Commonwealth Court. 1

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 4/28/2015

____________________________________________
1 Appellant’s Application to Consider Timely Filed Reply Brief filed 3/30/15 is dismissed as moot.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

BERNARD RALPH GRAVES,

Petitioner,

v. 3:10cv375-WS/MD

MIKE BABCOCK,

Respondent.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation docketed

January 20, 2011. See Doc. 14. The magistrate judge recommends that the

petitioner's motion for summary judgment and petition for writ of habeas corpus be

denied. The petitioner has filed no objections to the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation.

This court having reviewed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in

light of the petitioner’s objections, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 14) is hereby

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. The petitioner's motion for summary judgment (doc. 11) and petition for writ of

habeas corpus (doc. 1) are DENIED with prejudice.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.
Page 2 of 2

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

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 3:10cv375-WS
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

Wniteb ~tate~ (!Court of ~peaI~

for tbe jfeberaI (!Circuit

DAVID JACKSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS AND LYNETTE A. ROFF, DIRECTOR, VA

EASTERN COLORADO HCS,

Defendants-Appellees.

2012-1680

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

District of Colorado in case no. 10-CV-2596, Judge Marcia

S. Krieger.

Before NEWMAN, PROST, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Case: 12-1680 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 12/27/2012
DAVID JACKSON V. SHINSEKI 2

The Secretary of Veterans Mfairs moves to dismiss

this appeal for lack ofjurisdiction.

This appeal concerns an order of the United States

District Court for the District of Colorado dismissing

David Jackson's complaint alleging various claims regarding the Privacy Act against the Department of Veterans

Mfairs and denying several motions including leave to

replead. Because the district court's jurisdiction did not

arise in whole or in part under the laws governing this

court's limited appellate jurisdiction, we are without

authority to entertain this appeal. Since the United

States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has already

received and docketed the matter, dismissal rather than

transfer of the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 is appropriate.

Accordingly,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion to dismiss is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

(3) All other motions are denied as moot.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s26

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: __DE_C_2_1_20_~2_:.__

Case: 12-1680 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 12/27/2012
# C_2011014EN.01000701.xml

| 18.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6007 — Nokia Siemens Networks/Motorola Network Business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 14/03

On 15 December 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 32010M6007. 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 32010M6007. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
NO. 03
- 15
- 00109 CHELSEA PODOWSKI § IN THE THIRD COURT V. § OF APPEALS THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN AUSTIN , TEXAS

APPELLANT’S THIRD MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE REPLY TO APEELLEE’S BRIEF COMES NOW Chelsea Podowski, Appellant in the above

- styled and numbered cause, by and through his undersigned counsel, and respectfully moves this Court to extend the time to file Appellant’s brief. In support thereof, and pursuant to
TEX. R. APP. PROC. 10. 5(b), Appellant would show as follows:
(A) Appellant’s Reply to Appellee’s Brief is due on November 9 , 2015;
(B) Appellant seeks a 3 day extension until November 12, 2015 ;
(C) Undersigned counsel delivered the Reply brief on time to opposing counsel. However, when attempting to e

- file, the electronic envelope was not finalized until the next morning, on November 10 th . The Court’s Clerk also requested counsel to amend the delivered reply by including a certificate of compliance by November 12, 2015. No other changes have been made to the brief submitted on November 10 , 2015 other than the ACCEPTED 03-15-00109-CR 7809662 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 11/12/2015 5:21:05 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKrequested certificate of compliance has been included in the amended brief filed on November 12, 2015.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that the foreg oing motion be GRANTED.
Respectfully submitted,

________ /s/ James Gill

_______ JAMES GILL 1201 Rio Grande Street, Ste. 200 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 448

- 4560 (512) 308

- 6780 (Fax) jgill@austin

- crimin allawyer.com State Bar No. 24043692 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Appellant’s Third Motion to Extend Time to File Reply Brief was served on the Travis County District Attorney, P.O. Box 1748, Austin, Texas, 78767, by electronic transmission ( TCAppellate@traviscountytx.gov ) and the Court of Appeals, on this the 1 2 th day of November 2015.

________ /s/ James Gill

_______ JAMES GILL
Exhibit
32.1/32.2





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
Beverly Frederick, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of Mesa Energy Holdings, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended
June 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Mesa Energy Holdings, Inc.





Date:  August 12, 2009
                    By:
                    /s/ Beverly FrederickName:
                    Beverly
      FrederickTitle:
                    Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer





A signed
original of this written statement, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided to
Mesa Energy Holdings, Inc., and will be retained by Mesa Energy Holdings, Inc.,
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Exhibit 32


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



         In connection with the Annual Report of Advance  Financial Bancorp (the
"Company")  on Form  10-KSB for the year  ended June 30,  2003 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  we,
Stephen M.  Gagliardi,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer,  and Stephen M.
Magnone,  Chief Financial Officer,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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; 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/Stephen M. Gagliardi                            /s/Stephen M. Magnone
-----------------------                            ---------------------
Stephen M. Gagliardi                               Stephen M. Magnone
President and Chief Executive Officer              Chief Financial Officer



September 23, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 244 (Thursday, December 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72374-72375]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-6117]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Flight 93 National Memorial Advisory Commission; Notice of Public 
Meeting

AGENCY: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Flight 93 
Advisory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is given that a meeting of the Flight 93 Advisory 
Commission (the Commission) will be held on Saturday, February 2, 2008 
from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. (Eastern). The Commission will meet jointly with 
the Flight 93 Memorial Task Force. The joint meeting will be held at 
the Somerset County Courthouse, Courtroom <greek-i>1; 2nd floor; 111 
East Union Street, Somerset, Pennsylvania 155501.
    The agenda of the meeting will include review and approval of 
Commission minutes from October 7, 2007; reports from Flight 93 
Memorial Task Force and National Park Service; old business; and new 
business.
    The meeting will be open to the public. Comments from the public 
will be taken at the end of the meeting. Any person may file with a 
Commission a written statement concerning the matters to be discussed. 
Persons who wish to file a written statement or testify at the meeting, 
or who want further information concerning the meeting may contact 
Superintendent Joanne Hanley at 814.443.4557. Address all statements 
to: Flight 93 Advisory Commission, 109 West Main Street, Somerset, PA 
15501.

DATES: February 2, 2008 at 10 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Somerset County Courthouse, Courtroom <greek-i>1 2nd floor; 
111 East Union Street, Somerset, Pennsylvania 15501.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Superintendent Joanne M. Hanley, 
814.443.4557.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission was established by Public Law 
107-226 to advise the Secretary of the Interior on the planning, 
design, construction and long-term management of a permanent memorial 
at the crash site of Flight 93.


[[Page 72375]]


    Dated: December 14, 2007.
Joanne M. Hanley,
Superintendent, Flight 93 National Memorial.
[FR Doc. 07-6117 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-25-M
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DAPHNE M. GILBERT,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv301-RH/WCS

WARDEN P. AUGUSTINE et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (document 8). No objections have been filed. Upon

consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s

opinion. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “This case is DISMISSED without

prejudice.” The clerk must close the file. 

SO ORDERED on December 14, 2010.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report
of SpectrumDNA, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the
undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of the
undersigned’s knowledge, that:





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





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





Dated:  May 15,
      2009
                By:
                /s/ James A. BanisterJames
      A. Banister,President
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)





Dated:  May 15,
      2009
                By:
                /s/ Rebecca D.
HershingerRebecca
      D. Hershinger,Chief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer andPrincipal
      Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with this Quarterly Report of Independent Film Development Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth Eade, the Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.   The information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date:  February 15, 2011



/s/  Kenneth G. Eade

Chief Financial Officer and Director
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

SCOTT CARSWELL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO.: 4:10cv486-SPM/WCS

LISA ECHEVERRI, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________/

ORDER EXTENDING TIME AND STAYING DEADLINES

Upon consideration of the parties’ unopposed motions concerning

extensions of time to respond to the complaint and staying the deadlines in the

initial scheduling order pending rulings on motions to stay and remand, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The motions for extension of time to respond (docs. 36 and 39) are

granted. Transocean shall have 5 days after a ruling on the motion to stay to

respond to the amended complaint. HHI shall 30 days after a ruling on the

motion to stay to respond to the amended complaint.

2. The motions to stay the initial scheduling order (docs. 40 and 42) 

are granted. The deadlines in the initial scheduling order are stayed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of January, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

KAREN SHELTON and

DARRYL SHELTON,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO.: 3:09cv401/MCR/EMT

WAL-MART STORES, INC., and

THE STANLEY WORKS,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This cause is before the court upon the Motion to Dismiss filed by plaintiff, Darryl

Shelton. (Doc. 6). Upon consideration of the foregoing, all claims in the above-styled

cause of action brought by plaintiff, Darryl Shelton, against defendants, Wal-Mart Stores,

Inc., and The Stanley Works, are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice, each party to bear

their respective fees and costs.

 SO ORDERED this 9th day of October, 2009.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LYNNE LOUISE MASSIE,

Plaintiff,

v. 3:10cv405/LAC/MD

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

____________________________________________________________________ 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff filed a complaint for judicial review of an adverse administrative decision of

the defendant and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1 and 2). However, her

complaint appeared to ask for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which

is part of the administrative review process, and which must be held before a suit in this

court is filed. The court thus entered an order informing plaintiff that if no hearing before

an ALJ had been held, plaintiff should voluntarily dismiss this case because it was

premature. She was instructed to send a copy of the complaint filed in this court, along

with a copy of this order, to the Social Security Administration at the address provided to

her in the decision denying her benefits.

She was further advised that if a hearing before an ALJ had already been held, this

case would proceed. Her motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted, and the

Commissioner of Social Security, Michael J. Astrue, was substituted as the defendant in

this cause. Plaintiff was directed to submit three fully completed USM 285 forms for

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, the United States Attorney for the

Northern District of Florida, and the Attorney General of the United States, along with

service copies of her complaint, or a notice of voluntary dismissal as set forth above. 
Page 2 of 2

Plaintiff failed to respond to this order, and the court entered an order to show cause

why this case should not be dismissed. She failed to respond to that order as well.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED: 

That this case be dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or

failure to comply with an order of the court. 

At Pensacola, Florida, this 1 day of December, 2010. st

 /s/ Miles Davis

 MILES DAVIS

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No: 3:10cv405/LAC/MD
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CECIL EUGENE BOYKIN, JR,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00001-MP -GRJ

JERRELLS, LEVY COUNTY JAIL, MARSH, LISA MATTHIS, JOHNNY SMITH,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 6, Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge, which recommends that this case be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the

Court and for failure to prosecute. On January 5, 2011, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with a prisoner consent form and inmate account

information or pay the full filing fee. After the Magistrate Judge issued his report and

recommendation, Plaintiff untimely filed a second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

with the required prisoner consent form and inmate account information. Plaintiff states that his

mail delivery and access to the law library was delayed due to his transfers within the prison

system. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Doc. 6, is REJECTED

and this case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further consideration.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of June, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-00001-MP-GRJ Document 10 Filed 06/03/11 Page 1 of 1