alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 12 , 2018.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 18

- 00123

- CV

LOCKWOOD, ANDREWS & NEWMAN , INC. , Appellant
V.
GEOFF MULES AND ANNETTE MULES , Appellee s
On Appeal from the 151st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 72364

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from an order signed January 23, 201 8. On May 22, 2018, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted.
Acc ordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Wise, and Jewell.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CITIZENS STATE BANK,

a Florida corporation, 

f/k/a/ THE CITIZENS BANK OF PERRY,

a Florida corporation,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-224-SPM-GRJ

DIXIE COUNTY, a political subdivision 

of the State of Florida,

Defendant.

 /

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Document Number 43. 

(Doc. 46.) Plaintiff advises that it erred in filing its confidential attorney fee records as a

non-confidential notice of hours. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests an order from the Court

instructing the Clerk to delete Doc. 43 from the docket for this action.

Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Document Number 43 (Doc. 46) is GRANTED. 

(2) The Clerk is instructed to delete Doc. 43 from the docket.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17 day of May, 2011. th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:10-cv-00224-SPM-GRJ Document 47 Filed 05/17/11 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 12(a)Entergy Arkansas, Inc.Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges andRatios of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred DividendsTwelve Months EndedDecember 31,
June 30,2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008Total Interest Charges
$91,221
$84,430
$84,992
$85,809
$91,740
$86,475Interest applicable to rentals
15,425
13,171
13,911
11,145
10,919
11,576Total fixed charges, as defined
106,646
97,601
98,903
96,954
102,659
98,051Preferred dividends, as defined (a)
14,274
12,646
12,093
10,041
11,104
11,531Combined fixed charges and preferred dividends, as defined
$120,920
$110,247
$110,996
$106,995
$113,763
$109,582Earnings as defined:Net Income
$126,009
$142,210
$174,635
$173,154
$139,111
$129,875Add:Provision for income taxes:Total
105,296
89,064
96,949
56,824
85,638
85,391Fixed charges as above
106,646
97,601
98,903
96,954
102,659
98,051Total earnings, as defined
$337,951
$328,875
$370,487
$326,932
$327,408
$313,317Ratio of earnings to fixed charges, as defined
3.17
3.37
3.75
3.37
3.19
3.20Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges andpreferred dividends, as defined
2.79
2.98
3.34
3.06
2.88
2.86------------------------(a) "Preferred dividends," as defined by SEC regulation S-K, are computed by dividing the preferred dividend
      requirement by one hundred percent (100%) minus the income tax rate.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ODELL PRATER,

 Plaintiff,

vs. 3:10cv421/RV/MD

C.O. MOORHOUSE, et al.

 Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal without

prejudice. (Doc. 11). Plaintiff seeks to dismiss his case without prejudice in order to

pursue his case in state court upon his release from prison, which he anticipates to be in

December of 2011. Given that the events complained of occurred relatively recently, in

February of 2010, this request should be granted. Plaintiff also requests that the clerk

return his “filed claim with exhibits attached.” The court cannot return original pleadings

to the plaintiff as those are part of the permanent court record. However, the clerk will be

directed to return to the plaintiff one service copy of his original complaint with attachments,

so that he may have same for his records. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 

The clerk shall return one of the service copies of plaintiff’s original and attachments

to him for his records.

And it is respectfully recommended

That plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice (doc. 11) be granted

and this case be dismissed without prejudice.
Page 2 of 2

At Pensacola, Florida, this 19 day of January, 2011. th

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be

filed within fourteen days after being served a copy hereof. Any different deadline

that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and

does not control. A copy of any objections shall be served upon any other parties. 

Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28

U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11 Cir. 1988). th

Case No: 3:10cv421/RV/MD
|   | 1.   The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities 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. |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                                       |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                       |   |
|   |   | /s/ Brian      T. Cahill              |   |
|   |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |   | Dated:      February 12, 2010              |   |
|   |   |                                       |   |

----
Exhibit 13.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
    "Company")  for  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  2013,  as  filed  with  the  Securities  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Daniel Johannes Pretorius, as Chief Executive  Officer  of the  Company,  hereby  certifies, pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350, as adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  2002,  that,  to  the  best  of  his knowledge:
   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
   the  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in  all  material respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  the Company.
  /s/ Daniel Johannes Pretorius By:
  Title:  Chief Executive Officer Date:  October 25, 2013


Exhibit 13.2
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
    "Company")  for  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  2013,  as  filed  with  the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  Craig  Clinton  Barnes,  as  Chief Financial  Officer  of  the  Company,  hereby  certifies,  pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  2002,  that,  to  the  best  of  his knowledge:
   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
   the  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in  all  material respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  the Company.
 /s/ Craig Clinton Barnes By:
  Title:  Chief Financial Officer Date:  October 25, 2013
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EPIGMENIO RIOS-SIERRA, AKA

Epimenio Rios, AKA Antonio Martines,

AKA Sergio Rosales, AKA Juan Garcia

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 14-72503

Agency No. A091-865-390

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 22, 2015** 

Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Epigmenio Rios-Sierra, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for protection

FILED

JUN 30 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by

8 U.S.C. § 1252. Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1036-37 (9th Cir. 2013). 

We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v.

Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and review de novo claims of

due process violations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). 

We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Rios-Sierra’s CAT claim

because Rios-Sierra did not establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured

by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Zheng v.

Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011). The record does not support RiosSierra’s contentions that the agency’s analysis was deficient. We reject RiosSierra’s contentions that the IJ did not allow him to present his claim and exhibited

bias. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to

prevail on a due process claim). 

We do not consider new evidence Rios-Sierra references in his opening brief

because our review is limited to the administrative record underlying the agency’s

decision. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

2 14-72503
Finally, based on respondent’s statement that Rios-Sierra has been released

from detention, Rios-Sierra’s request for a bond hearing is moot. See Picrin-Peron

v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 1991).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 14-72503
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2498 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to clarify the Federal Pell 

Grant duration limits of borrowers who attend an institution of higher 

education that closes or commits fraud or other misconduct, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2019 

Ms. WARREN (for herself, Mr. MURPHY, Ms. HIRONO, and Mr. BROWN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to clarify 

the Federal Pell Grant duration limits of borrowers who 

attend an institution of higher education that closes or 

commits fraud or other misconduct, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pell Grant Restoration 

5 Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 2498 IS

1 SEC. 2. FEDERAL PELL GRANT DURATION LIMITS. 

2 Section 401(c)(5) of the Higher Education Act of 

3 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a(c)(5)) is amended— 

4 (1) by striking ‘‘(5) The period’’ and inserting 

5 the following: ‘‘(5) MAXIMUM PERIOD.— 

6 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in 

7 subparagraph (B), the period’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(B) EXCEPTION.— 

10 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Any Federal Pell 

11 Grant that a student received during a pe12 riod described in subclause (I) or (II) of 

13 clause (ii) shall not count towards the stu14 dent’s duration limits under this para15 graph. 

16 ‘‘(ii) APPLICABLE PERIODS.—Clause 

17 (i) shall apply with respect to any Federal 

18 Pell Grant awarded to a student to attend 

19 an institution— 

20 ‘‘(I) during a period— 

21 ‘‘(aa) for which the student 

22 received a loan under this title; 

23 and 

24 ‘‘(bb) for which the loan de25 scribed in item (aa) is forgiven 

26 under— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 2498 IS

1 ‘‘(AA) section 437(c)(1) 

2 or 464(g)(1) due to the clos3 ing of the institution; 

4 ‘‘(BB) section 455(h) 

5 due to the student’s success6 ful assertion of a defense to 

7 repayment of the loan; or 

8 ‘‘(CC) section 

9 432(a)(6), section 685.215 

10 of title 34, Code of Federal 

11 Regulations (or a successor 

12 regulation), or any other 

13 loan forgiveness provision or 

14 regulation under this Act, as 

15 a result of a determination 

16 by the Secretary or a court 

17 that the institution com18 mitted fraud or other mis19 conduct; or 

20 ‘‘(II) during a period for which 

21 the student did not receive a loan 

22 under this title but for which, if the 

23 student had received such a loan, the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
4 

•S 2498 IS

1 student would have qualified for loan 

2 forgiveness under subclause (I)(bb).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DAVID T. RHODEN, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11cv26-MP-GRJ

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated February 14, 2012. (Doc. 21). The parties have been furnished

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de

novo determination of any timely filed objections. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any 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 decision of the Commissioner, denying benefits prior to December 7, 2006,

is AFFIRMED.

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00026-MP-GRJ Document 22 Filed 05/02/12 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. Case Nos. 3:10cr101-TKW-HTC 

3:17cv425-TKW-HTC 

DENNIS M. CARONI,

Defendant.

/

OR D E R

This case is before the Court based on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 

737) in which the magistrate judge recommends that Defendant’s motion to vacate,

set aside, or correct his judgment and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 (Doc. 

710) be denied on procedural grounds and/or on the merits. Defendant filed

objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 738).

Based on my de novo review of the issues raised in the objections, I disagree 

with the magistrate judge’s determination that the claims raised by Defendant in his

§2255 motion are procedurally barred because he failed to raise those claims in a

motion for new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. On this point, I agree with Defendant 

that the fact that he could have raised these claims in a Rule 33 motion while his 

direct appeal was pending (and then challenged the denial of that motion in a 

separate appeal) does not mean that he had to do so. See Barnes v. United States, 

437 F.3d 1074, 1080 (11th Cir. 2006) (stating that “filing a Rule 33 motion for a new 
2

trial does not serve as a prerequisite to a §2255 motion”); United States v. O’Malley, 

833 F.3d 810, 815 (7th Cir. 2016) (explaining that the defendant has the option of 

raising a Brady claim in a Rule 33 motion or in a §2255 motion). However, I agree 

with the magistrate judge’s alternative determination that the Brady and fraud-onthe-court claims raised by Defendant in his §2255 motion are refuted by the record 

and are legally meritless. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED

and incorporated by reference in this Order, with the exception of Part

IV.A.

2. Defendant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his judgment 

and sentence (Doc. 710) is DENIED.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of August, 2019.

T. Kent Wetherell, II

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 50 Filed 11/08/10 Page 1 of 4
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 50 Filed 11/08/10 Page 2 of 4
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 50 Filed 11/08/10 Page 3 of 4
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 50 Filed 11/08/10 Page 4 of 4
# C_2011064EN.01001001.xml

| 1.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/10

---

Calls for proposals under the work programme for 2011 of the Information and Communication Technologies Policy Support Programme as part of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007 to 2013)

2011/C 64/07

Notice is hereby given of the launch of the call for proposals under the work programme for 2011 of the Information and Communication Technologies Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP) as part of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme — (2007 to 2013).

Proposals are invited for the following call: CIP-ICT PSP-2011-5.

Call documentation including content, deadline and budget is given in the call texts which are published on the ICT PSP website:

http://ec.europa.eu/ict_psp

---
Exhibit 12.1
 CERTIFICATION
 
  
   
         
         
  The Company's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:
 
                
  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
 c)
           
             
         
               
           
   
 /s/ Daniel Johannes Pretorius Daniel Johannes Pretorius Chief Executive Officer


Exhibit 12.2
  CERTIFICATION
 
  
   
         
         
  The Company's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:
 
                
  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
              
             
         
               
           
   
 /s/ Craig Clinton Barnes Craig Clinton Barnes Chief Financial Officer
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

March 28, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-14973

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-01913-CV-TWT-1

KIRK WHITTAKER, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

versus 

G. MALDONADO, JR., 

Respondent-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(March 28, 2006)

Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Petitioner is a serving a 262-month sentence in a federal prison. He

contends that the Bureau of Prison’s (BOP) policy of calculating good time credit

(GTC) based on the time the prisoner has been incarcerated is contrary to the plain

meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1); instead, the BOP should be calculating GTC

based on the time the prisoner is sentenced to serve. He bought this action under

28 U.S.C. § 2241, hoping to obtain a court order requiring the BOP to calculate

GTC based on the time he is sentenced to serve. The district court dismissed his

petition. He now appeals. We affirm. 

The statute at issue states that 

a prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year

. . . may receive credit toward the service of the prisoner’s sentence,

beyond the time served, of up to 54 days at the end of each year of the

prisoner’s term of imprisonment, beginning at the end of the first year

of the term, subject to determination by the Bureau of Prisons that,

during that year, the prisoner has displayed exemplary compliance

with institutional disciplinary regulations.

18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1). The BOP interprets this section to mean that an inmate

earns “54 days credit toward service of sentence (good time credit) for each year

served.” 28 C.F.R. § 523.20(a). 

In Brown v. McFadden, 416 F.3d 1271, 1272 (11th Cir. 2005), we decided

the claim petitioner presents here. There, we held the BOP’s “interpretation of the

statute that a federal prisoner should get good time credit of 54 days for each year
3

he actually serves in prison [was] reasonable and therefore [was] due to be

affirmed.” 

Brown dictates our decision.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

VICTOR WHITEHEAD,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-8/RS-CJK

GULF COAST HYPERBARIC INC.,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

UORDER

Consideration of Plaintiff’s Notice Requesting Clerk to Appoint Mediator is 

deferred until counsel certifies compliance with N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(B). 

ORDERED on July 20, 2011.

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:11-cv-00008-RS-CJK Document 32 Filed 07/20/11 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ALONZO JAMES OATES,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:09cv303/RS-MD

JACKSON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17). 

Plaintiff has not filed objections. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this Order. 

2. Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss (Doc. 10) is granted, and Plaintiff’s claims

against the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office are dismissed with prejudice.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on March 4, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE