alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

CARL DWAYNE MORGAN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10cv82-RH/MD

BAY COUNTY JAIL et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT

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

recommendation (document 5). The recommendation is for the dismissal of the

complaint with prejudice and the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for the

appointment of an attorney. No objections have been filed. I accept the

recommendation in part. I dismiss the complaint but grant leave to amend. I deny

the motion for the appointment of an attorney.

In considering whether to dismiss the complaint, its factual allegations of

course must be accepted as true. The allegations are as follows.

The plaintiff Carl Dwayne Morgan was detained at the Bay County Jail. On

January 13, 2010, he told correctional officer Holland that there was “a possible
Page 2 of 3

problem” with inmate Bostick, who was housed in the same unit. The problem

was that Mr. Morgan had been charged with molesting Mr. Bostick’s daughter. 

On January 15, a different officer learned of a potential risk to Mr.

Bostick—not Mr. Morgan—and spoke to Mr. Morgan about it. Mr. Morgan

denied any knowledge of a risk to Mr. Bostick, but Mr. Morgan told the officer the

same thing he had told officer Holland two days earlier. 

Nothing was done to protect Mr. Morgan. Three inmates—Mr. Bostick’s

friends—assaulted Mr. Morgan. The assault apparently occurred on January 15,

soon after Mr. Morgan advised the second officer of the possible problem.

The report and recommendation correctly concludes that the complaint’s

factual allegations are insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be granted. 

But it is by no means clear that Mr. Morgan will be unable to allege sufficient

facts in an amended complaint. He will be given an opportunity to try.

In determining whether to file an amended complaint, Mr. Morgan should

evaluate the cases cited in the report and recommendation, including especially

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1994). The

case sets out the standards governing a correctional officer’s duty to protect an

inmate from an assault by another inmate.

For these reasons, 

IT IS ORDERED:

Case No: 5:10cv82-RH/MD
Page 3 of 3

1. The report and recommendation (document 5) is accepted in part. 

2. The complaint is dismissed. 

3. The plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint. Any

amended complaint must be filed by July 2, 2010. 

4. The clerk must refer the file directly to me—not to the magistrate

judge—upon the filing of an amended complaint or on July 6, 2010. 

5. The plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of an attorney (document

3) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED on May 31, 2010.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge

Case No: 5:10cv82-RH/MD
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

SEAN PATRICK REILLY,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00237-MP-GRJ

LARRY CAMPBELL, et al,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s inmate account information was docketed after an order was prepared

and entered later the same day directing him to file this information. (See Docs. 3 and

4). As required by the Court’s Order, Plaintiff must still file a motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis and file a signed Prisoner Consent Form by the deadline

given. Plaintiff does not need to submit the inmate account information again. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 2 day of December 2010. nd

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge
# C_2009032EN.01000101.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/1

---

(2009/C 32/01)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 19, 24.1.2009

OJ C 19, 24.1.2009

Past publications

OJ C 6, 10.1.2009

OJ C 327, 20.12.2008

OJ C 313, 6.12.2008

OJ C 301, 22.11.2008

OJ C 285, 8.11.2008

OJ C 272, 25.10.2008

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 226 (Monday, November 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 65972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5808]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Environmental Health 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel, Signaling Pathways in Stages of 
Mammary Tumorigenesis.
    Date: December 19, 2007.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: NIEHS/National Institutes of Health, Building 4401, East 
Campus, 79 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park. NC 27709, 
(Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Janice B. Allen, PhD., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Research and Training, Nat. Institute of Environmental Health 
Science, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-30/Room 3170 B, Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27709, (919) 541-7556.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.115, 
Biometry and Risk Estimation--Health Risks from Environmental 
Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety 
Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances--Basic 
Research and Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower Development 
in the Environmental Health Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to 
Environmental Health Hazards; 93.144, Applied Toxicological Research 
and Testing, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

    Dated: November 16, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-5808 Filed 11-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO.: 4:10cr71-SPM

SAMMY LAMY

 a/k/a “Sinmy Lamy”

Defendant.

____________________________/

ACCEPTANCE OF GUILTY PLEA

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, and subject to

the Court’s consideration of any Plea Agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.

11(e)(2), the plea of guilty of the defendant, SAMMY LAMY, to Count Two of the

indictment is hereby ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court for

sentencing as directed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of February, 2011. 

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 1 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 2 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 3 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 4 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 5 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 6 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 7 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 8 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 9 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 10 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 11 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 12 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 13 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 14 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 15 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 16 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 17 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 18 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 19 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 20 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 21 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 22 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 23 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 24 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 25 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 26 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 27 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 28 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 29 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 30 of 31

Case 3:10-cv-00322-MCR -MD   Document 1    Filed 08/30/10   Page 31 of 31
#### STATE v. TATE

No. 507P82.

Case below: 58 N.C. App. 494.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 October 1982. Motion by Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 5 October 1982.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

ALBERT MULBERRY, JR,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-132-MP -GRJ

SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondents.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On June 26, 2013, the undersigned ordered Petitioner to show cause on or

before July 10, 2013, as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to

prosecute because Petitioner failed to apprise the court of his change of address to a

different institution. Doc. 34. The Order was returned to the Court as undeliverable. 

Doc. 35.

The Court directed the Respondent to confirm Petitioner’s custody status. Doc.

36. A copy of the Order was sent to Petitioner, but was returned as undeliverable. 

Doc. 40. The Respondent informed the Court that Petitioner is currently on conditional

release, and provided the Court with Petitioner’s last known address. Doc. 38.

On July 23, 2013, the Court ordered Petitioner to file a change of address with

the Court on or before August 2, 2013, and the Clerk mailed the Order to Petitioner’s

last known address as provided by the Respondent, as well as his address of record

with the Court. Doc. 39. That Order was returned as undeliverable. Doc. 41.

As of the date of this Report and Recommendation, all mail directed to Petitioner
Page 2 of 2

since June 26, 2013, has been returned to the Court as undeliverable. Petitioner has

not provided the Court with a current address, and has failed to comply with the Court’s

Orders to do so. 

 Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed for

failure to prosecute.

IN CHAMBERS this 6 day of August 2013. 

th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

 

Case No: 1:10-cv-132-MP -GRJ
Page 1 of 2

 1 Plaintiff is well aware of this requirement and has been advised of the necessity to

comply with Rule 5.1(H) in numerous prior cases she has filed in this Court. See, e.g.,

cases 4:09cv84-RH/WCS; 4:08cv225-SPM/WCS; 4:08cv187-SPM/WCS; 4:07cv527-

SPM/WCS; 4:07cv521-SPM/WCS; and 4:07cv510-SPM/WCS.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

VICKI WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:09cv341-RS/WCS

THE CAPITAL,

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, who is pro se, submitted a civil rights complaint on August 31, 2009. 

Doc. 1. Plaintiff has also submitted a statement of facts, doc. 3. Plaintiff did not pay the

filing fee for this case nor did she submit an in forma pauperis motion with the required

supporting financial affidavit. Under the local rules of this Court, a civil action "shall not

be filed by the clerk until the fee is paid as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914, unless the

complaint . . . is accompanied by a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis." N.D.

Fla. Loc. R. 5.1(H). Because Plaintiff neither paid the fee nor filed an in forma pauperis

motion, this case should be dismissed.1

 
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:09cv341-RS/WCS

Moreover, federal law permits a United States District Court to dismiss a case

filed in forma pauperis, if it is satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious. The

Supreme Court has recognized two types of cases which may be dismissed, sua

sponte, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S. Ct.

1827, 1833, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989). The first class are "claim(s) based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory," and the second class contain "claims whose factual

contentions are clearly baseless." Id. This case lacks both an arguable basis in law

and is clearly removed from reality. Sultenfuss v. Snow, 894 F.2d 1277 (11th Cir.

1990), citing Neitzke. Plaintiff's allegations are incomprehensible and fit both classes of

cases which may be dismissed sua sponte. 

Even though Plaintiff has not yet been granted in forma pauperis status, there is

no need to delay dismissal of this case only to resolve the issue of the filing fee. Sua

sponte dismissal of the complaint is appropriate because it is frivolous and nonsensical.

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this action be

DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on September 11, 2009.

 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 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. A party may

respond to another party's objections within 10 days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure

to file specific objections limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and

recommendations.
EXHIBIT 10.43

BASE SALARIES FOR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

The annual base salaries of the following individuals,
who were executive officers of the Company during part or all of 2006 are as follows:



|                     |  |   |        
|-------------------- |  | - | -------
|Michael E. Jalbert   |  | $ | 400,000
|Jana Ahlfinger Bell  |  | $ | 217,560
|R. Michael B. Gamble |  | $ | 145,040
|Robert C. Donohoo    |  | $ | 200,000
|Andrew Massey        |  | $ | 134,000
|Ellen OHara         |  | $ | 260,000
|Massoud Safavi       |  | $ | 260,000
|David Hart           |  | $ | 139,260
|James Hoover         |  | $ | 140,000
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2464 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2464

   To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit the authority of 
 district courts to provide injunctive relief, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 11, 2019

  Mr. Cotton introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit the authority of 
 district courts to provide injunctive relief, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Nationwide Injunction Abuse 
Prevention Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS TO 
              PROVIDE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1370. Limitation on authority to provide injunctive relief
    ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no district court may 
issue any order providing injunctive relief unless the order is 
applicable only to--
            ``(1) the parties to the case before the district court; or
            ``(2) the judicial district in which the order is 
        issued.''.
    (b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for chapter 84 of 
title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

``1370. Limitation on authority to provide injunctive relief.''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2010348EN.01000101.xml

| 21.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5949 — Deutsche Bank/Actavis)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 348/01

On 22 September 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 32010M5949. 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 32010M5949. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Page 1 of 2

 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

TRUST FINANCIAL,

A MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC,

a Texas Limited Liability Company,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00049-SPM-GRJ

FORT ATKINSON PLANTATION, LLC,

a Florida Limited Liability Company,

OWEN B. LOVEJOY,

FRED J. HATFIELD, III,

MARVIN BUCHANAN,

SHERROD CAMPBELL, and

CHARLES SHERWOOD,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion For Entry Of Order

Excusing Submission Of Pre-Trial Stipulations. (Doc. 90.) Plaintiff requests the

Court to enter an order excusing the parties from the obligation to file a Pre-Trial

Stipulation on or before March 10, 2011 until after such time as the Court has

ruled on Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment. (Doc. 85.) 

In support of its request, Plaintiff represents that three Defendants ( Fort

Atkinson Plantation, LLC, Fred J. Hatfield, III, and Marvin Buchanan) have expressly

consented to the granting of Plaintiff’s pending Motion For Summary Judgment.

(Doc. 85.) Plaintiff further represents that the other three Defendants (Sherrod

Campbell, Charles Sherw ood, and Ow en Lovejoy) have not filed any response to
Page 2 of 2

Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment and the time for doing so has expired.

Accordingly, Plaintiff suggests because the it is likely this case will be disposed of prior

to trial there is no need for a pre-trial stipulation unless the motion for summary

judgment is denied. The Court agrees that the Court should first resolve the motion for

summary judgment before the parties would be required to file the pre-trial stipulation.

Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion For Entry Of Order Excusing Submission Of Pre-Trial

Stipulations (Doc. 90) is GRANTED.

2. In the event that the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary

Judgment (Doc. 85), within seven (7) days from the date of the Court’s

order, counsel for the parties shall confer as directed in paragraph II of the

Order Setting Pre-Trial Conference. (Doc. 87.) Within seven (7) days

of such conference, the parties shall file the pre-trial stipulation and other

papers required by paragraphs III and IV of the Order Setting Pre-Trial

Conference.

DONE AND ORDERED this 2 day of March, 2011. 

nd

s/ Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 1:10-cv-00049-SPM-GRJ
Order filed February 26, 2014

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00146

- CV

____________ In the Interest of A.R.B., C.L.B., C.L.B. Jr., and E.B., Children

On Appeal from the 312th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2008

- 51371



### ORDER
This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the termination of the parent

- child relationship is at issue The notice of appeal was filed February 12, 2014. Appellant has established indigence or is presumed to be indigent. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(a). The reporter’s record was due within 10 days after the notice of appeal was filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1(b); 28.4(a)(1). The record has not been filed. Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal isfiled. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a). The trial and appellate courts are jointly

responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). The trial court must direct the court reporter to immediately commence the preparation of the reporter’s record and must arrange for a substitute reporter, if necessary. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.4(b)(1).

Becau se the reporter’s record has not been filed timely in this accelerated appeal, we issue the following order:

We order the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal on or before March 10 , 2014. If the court reporter does not timely file th e record as ordered, we will issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to
determine the reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM