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

 PRESIDING JUDGE

LAWRENCE E. MEYERS

CHERYL JOHNSON

MIKE KEASLER

BARBARA P. HERVEY

ELSA ALCALA

BERT RICHARDSON

KEVIN P. YEARY

DAVID NEWELL

 JUDGES

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

(512) 463-1551

SIAN SCHILHAB

GENERAL COUNSEL

(512) 463-1597

SUPREME COURT BUILDING, 201 WEST 14TH STREET, ROOM 106, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701

WEBSITE WWW.TXCOURTS.GOV/CCA.ASPX

February 25, 2015

District Clerk Wichita County

Patti Flores

P.O. Box 718

Wichita Falls, TX 76307

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

89th District Court Presiding Judge

900 7th St, Rm 300

Wichita Falls, TX 76301

John W. Brasher

Assistant District Attorney

900 7th Street

Wichita Falls, TX 76301

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

District Attorney Wichita County

Maureen Shelton

900 7th Street

Wichita Falls, TX 76301

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Paul Francis

1178 West Pioneer Parkway

PO Box 13369

Arlington, TX 76013

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

2nd Court Of Appeals Clerk

Debra Spisak

401 W. Belknap, Ste 9000

Fort Worth, TX 76196

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: MEADOWS, DONOVAN DARREN LEVOY

CCA No. PD-0175-14 COA No. 02-12-00643-CR

Trial Court Case No. 51,786-C

The court has issued an opinion on the above referenced cause number.

Sincerely,

_____________________________

Abel Acosta, Clerk

FILE COPY
Page 1 of 2

Case No. 4:11cv88-RH/WCS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

STEPHEN GANSTINE,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:11cv88-RH/WCS

EDWIN BUSS et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

The plaintiff lost this case by summary judgment. He has moved to alter or 

amend the judgment. He has filed the motion himself, even though he is 

represented by an attorney. The motion violates the court’s rules because a party 

who is represented by an attorney cannot properly file a motion himself and 

because the supporting memorandum far exceeds the page limit. 

The motion also is not a proper motion to alter or amend. Instead of 

identifying specific errors or other grounds for reconsidering the prior order, the 

motion combines a top-to-bottom reargument of the underlying summaryjudgment motion (not a proper use of a motion to alter or amend) with the addition 

Case 4:11-cv-00088-RH-WCS Document 65 Filed 02/16/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:11cv88-RH/WCS

of new arguments never made before the entry of the judgment (also not a proper 

use of a motion to alter or amend). The closest the motion comes to noting an 

oversight or other basis for reconsidering the prior order is this: the order said the 

plaintiff received soft shoes, while the record shows only that he received a softshoe pass and insoles. But this is still an issue of medical judgment; summary 

judgment for the defendants was and is proper. For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED:

The motion to alter or amend, ECF No. 63, is DENIED.

SO ORDERED on February 16, 2012.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 4:11-cv-00088-RH-WCS Document 65 Filed 02/16/12 Page 2 of 2
----

| ☒ | Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: For the quarterly period ended October 31, 2014 |
|---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ☐ | Transition report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: For the transition period from _______ to _________ |
|---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| NEVADA                                                         |   | 30-0420930                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) |   | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |

| Large accelerated filer       o     |   | Accelerated filer                        o |
|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                    |   |                                                                                                                                                          |
| Non-accelerated filer        o |   | Smaller reporting company      x                                                                                                          |
| (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)           |

----

----

----

| Dated: | February 24, 2015 |
|--------|-------------------|

| By: | /s/ Christine P. Spencer |
|-----|--------------------------|

----

| Exhibit No. | Description of Exhibit                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|-------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 31.1        | Certification of Principal Executive Officer required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
| 31.2        | Certification of Principal Financial Officer required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |

----
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DANIEL DAVIS, III,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00069-MP-AK

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This case is before the Court on Doc. 1, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has been granted leave to proceed as a pauper and has filed the

necessary copies for service, and therefore the Court will order service upon the Respondent. 

The Respondent shall, within the time set forth below, file an answer addressing the allegations

in the petition. § 2254 Rule 5(b). "In addition, [the answer] must state whether any claim in the

petition is barred by a failure to exhaust state remedies, a procedural bar, non-retroactivity, or a

statute of limitations." Id. Respondent may respond to the merits without waiving the

exhaustion requirement. See § 2254(b)(2) and § 2254(b)(3). Respondent shall include

references to the record (included with the answer pursuant to § 2254 Rule 5(d)) and citations to

relevant legal authority. 

The response shall be styled as an answer unless a motion to dismiss the entire petition is

appropriate. If a motion to dismiss is filed, Respondent need not also file an answer unless

directed by the Court. If an answer is filed raising a procedural defense to any ground for relief,

Respondent may await a ruling before responding on the merits to that particular ground. 
Page 2 of 2

1

Section 2254(e)(2) generally bars the court from granting an evidentiary hearing if the

Petitioner failed to properly develop the facts in support of his claim in state court. Schriro v.

Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 473-74 n.1 (2007). Even where not barred by the statute, the Court has

the discretion to deny a hearing if the record refutes the allegations or otherwise precludes relief. 

Id. (citations omitted). 

Case No: 1:10-cv-00069-MP-AK

Petitioner may file a reply to any of Respondent's arguments within the time set by this

order, but is not required to do so. § 2254 Rule 5(e).

The Court will review the record after the answer and Petitioner’s reply (if any) are filed. 

If it does not appear that a hearing or additional argument is warranted, then the undersigned will

enter a report and recommendation for disposition of the § 2254 petition. If an evidentiary

hearing is warranted and permitted,1

 counsel will be appointed. § 2254 Rule 8.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The clerk shall serve a copy of Doc. 1, along with this Order, to Respondent and the

Attorney General of the State of Florida via certified mail, return receipt requested.

2. Respondent shall file an answer or other pleading on or before August 31, 2010. If

voluminous exhibits or records (such as transcripts) are submitted in support of the

answer, paper copies shall be provided to the court. 

3. Petitioner shall have until September 30, 2010, to file a reply, if desired.

DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of June, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
|                          |   |                                                                                                |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated: May 17,      2010 | By:    | /s/      James A. Banister                                                                          |   |
|                          |   | James      A. Banister,President      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal      Executive Officer) |   |

|                          |   |                                                                                                                           |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated:      May 17,      2010 | By:    | /s/      Rebecca D. Hershinger                                                                                                 |   |
|                          |   | Rebecca      D. Hershinger,Chief      Financial Officer(Principal      Financial Officer andPrincipal      Accounting Officer) |   |

----
# C_2011067EN.01000601.xml

| 2.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6114 — 3i Group/Onemed)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 67/03

On 25 February 2011, 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 32011M6114. 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 32011M6114. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Case 3:11-cr-00013-MCR Document 321 Filed 07/29/11 Page 1 of 7Case 3:11-cr-00013-MCR Document 321 Filed 07/29/11 Page 2 of 7Case 3:11-cr-00013-MCR Document 321 Filed 07/29/11 Page 3 of 7Case 3:11-cr-00013-MCR Document 321 Filed 07/29/11 Page 4 of 7Case 3:11-cr-00013-MCR Document 321 Filed 07/29/11 Page 5 of 7Case 3:11-cr-00013-MCR Document 321 Filed 07/29/11 Page 6 of 7Case 3:11-cr-00013-MCR Document 321 Filed 07/29/11 Page 7 of 7
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOAO MAXIMIANO DE OLIVEIRA,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 4:11cv41-RH/WCS

ICE IMMIGRATION,

Respondent.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On January 27, 2011, Petitioner submitted a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §

2241. Doc. 1. Petitioner contends that he has been unlawfully detained by immigration

officials for nearly two years. Id., at 1. Petitioner states that he has no criminal charges

or convictions, and has lived in the United States for 19 years, but states that he is

being removed "only [for] immigration purposes" and was arrested in his home by I.N.S. 

Id., at 2, 4. 

Petitioner has appealed the removal order to the Board of Appeals, but states

that he lost his appeal on July 9, 2010. Id., at 5. He further states that he filed a notice

of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on July 29, 2010. Id. It appears that

Petition lost that appeal as well on December 9, 2010. Id. Petitioner states that he has
Page 2 of 2

refused efforts to remove him and I.C.E. officials have beaten him. Id. Petitioner is

housed at Krome Detention Center in Miami, Florida. Id., at 1, 2.

This Court lacks jurisdiction over this petition because Petitioner is not located

within the Northern District of Florida. Transfer of this case to the Southern District of

Florida, however, would be meaningless because district courts do not have jurisdiction

over this type of § 2241 petition. It appears that Petitioner seeks further judicial review

of the removal order and wants to challenge the final order of removal. Jurisdiction for

that purpose lies only in the Court of Appeals. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). This case should

be transferred to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for further proceedings, if

Petitioner is entitled to any further process, as required by the REAL ID Act of 2005,

Pub.L.No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 302. Mejia Rodriguez v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec.,562

F.3d 1137, 1142 (11th Cir. 2009).

It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this § 2241 habeas petition be

TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. 

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on February 18, 2011.

 S/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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. 4:11cv41-RH/WCS
SHARON KELLER PRESIDING JUDGE

LAWRENCE E. MEYERS CHERYL JOHNSON MIKE KEASLER BARBARA P. HERVEY ELSA ALCALA BERT RICHARDSON KEVIN P. YEARY DAVID NEWELL JUDGES 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS
P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 ABEL ACOSTA CLERK (512) 463-1551

SIAN SCHILHAB GENERAL COUNSEL (512) 463-1597

S UPREME C OURT B UILDING , 201 W EST 14 TH S TREET , R OOM 106, A USTIN , T EXAS 78701

W EBSITE WWW

. TXCOURTS

. GOV / CCA

. ASPX February 25, 2015

District Clerk Wichita County Patti Flores P.O. Box 718 Wichita Falls, TX 76307

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

89th District Court Presiding Judge 900 7th St, Rm 300 Wichita Falls, TX 76301

John W. Brasher Assistant District Attorney 900 7th Street Wichita Falls, TX 76301

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * District Attorney Wichita County Maureen Shelton 900 7th Street Wichita Falls, TX 76301

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Paul Francis 1178 West Pioneer Parkway PO Box 13369 Arlington, TX 76013

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

2nd Court Of Appeals Clerk Debra Spisak 401 W. Belknap, Ste 9000 Fort Worth, TX 76196

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: MEADOWS, DONOVAN DARREN LEVOY CCA No. PD-0175-14 COA No. 02-12-00643-CR Trial Court Case No. 51,786-C

The court has issued an opinion on the above referenced cause number.

Sincerely,

_____________________________ Abel Acosta, Clerk
# C_2009292EN.01002501.xml

| 2.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/25

---

Corrigendum to the call for proposals and expressions of interest — ESPON 2013 Programme

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 216 of 10 September 2009
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 216 of 10 September 2009

2009/C 292/09

On page 9, point 1 ‘Call for proposals for applied research projects’, seventh indent:

for:

| ‘— | Territorial dimension of innovation and knowledge economy (EUR 750 000)’; |
| --- | --- |

‘—

Territorial dimension of innovation and knowledge economy (EUR 750 000)’;

read:

| ‘— | Territorial dimension of innovation and knowledge economy (EUR 800 000)’. |
| --- | --- |

‘—

Territorial dimension of innovation and knowledge economy (EUR 800 000)’.

---
# C_2010304EN.01000201.xml

| 10.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5987 — Zublin/VMT/ITC JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 304/03

On 4 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 German 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 32010M5987. 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 32010M5987. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:10-CR-71-SPM/WCS-1

CALIXTE SIMEON,

 

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation (doc. 31) of the United States

Magistrate Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, the plea of guilty of

the Defendant, CALIXTE SIMEON, to Count Two of the Indictment is hereby

ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court for sentencing as directed.

DONE AND ORDERED this sixteenth day of December, 2010.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 249 (Monday, December 31, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 74289]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-6238]

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

FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXAMINATION COUNCIL

Appraisal Subcommittee; Information Collection Submitted for OMB 
Review And Comment Request

AGENCY: Appraisal Subcommittee, Federal Financial Institutions 
Examination Council.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial 
Institutions Examination Council (``ASC'') will submit to the Office of 
Management and Budget (``OMB'') for clearance the following information 
collection, without change from a previously approved collection.

DATES: Comments on this information collection must be received on or 
before January 30, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Marc L. Weinberg, Acting Executive Director 
and General Counsel, Appraisal Subcommittee, 2000 K Street, NW., Suite 
310, Washington, DC 20006; and Mark D. Menchik, Clearance Officer, 
Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 
10236, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc L. Weinberg, Acting Executive 
Director and General Counsel, Appraisal Subcommittee, 2000 K Street, 
NW., Suite 310, Washington, DC 20006, from whom copies of the 
information collection and supporting documents are available.

Summary of Revision

    Title: 12 CFR part 1102, subpart D; Rules pertaining to the privacy 
of individuals and systems of records maintained by the Appraisal 
Subcommittee.
    Type of Review: Regular submission.
    Description: The information will be used by the ASC and its staff 
in determining whether to grant to an individual access to records 
pertaining to that individual and whether to amend or correct ASC 
records pertaining to that individual under the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 
U.S.C. 552a).
    Form Number: None.
    OMB Number: 3139-0006.
    Affected Public: Individuals and households.
    Number of Respondents: 50 respondents.
    Total Annual Responses: 50 responses.
    Average Hours per Response: .33 hours.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 16.67 hours.

    Dated: December 21, 2007.

    By the Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial 
Institutions Examination Council.
Marc L. Weinberg,
acting Executive Director & General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 07-6238 Filed 12-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-M
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 

August 7, 2020

Order 

Clerk

August 7, 2020

158663(119)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 158663

v COA: 336058

Macomb CC: 2015-002617-FC

TROY ANTONIO BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the third motion of defendant-appellant to extend the 

time for filing his supplemental reply is GRANTED. The reply will be accepted as timely 

filed if submitted on or before August 10, 2020.