alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ANGELA D. BUTLER,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11cv44/RS-GRJ

SMITH DEAN & ASSOCIATES,

INC., a Florida corporation,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER

The relief requested by the Joint Motion For Order Permitting Telephonic 

Appearance Of Client Representatives At Mediation (Doc. 136) is granted.

ORDERED on September 7, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cv-00044-RS-GRJ Document 37 Filed 09/07/11 Page 1 of 1
#### Hopeton D. A. Quaid et al., Respondents, *v.*Bernard Ratkowsky, Appellant.

*Quaid*v. *Ratkowsky,*183 App. Div. 428, affirmed.

(Argued October 3, 1918;

decided October 22, 1918.)

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 31, 1918, which reversed an order of Special Term, striking this case from the Special Term calendar and sending it to the Trial Term as an action at law triable by a jury. The action was against the individual owner of practically all the shares of stock of a corporation to compel the payment of an unsatisfied judgment obtained against the corporation. The Appellate Division held that the action was properly brought and was maintainable in equity. The following question was certified: “Do the pleadings and proof make out any cause of action in equity? *”*

*Louis Marshall*and *Harry A. Gordon*for appellant.

*Charles Green Smith*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, McLaughlin and Crane, JJ.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DERREL THOMAS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:11-cv-46-MP-GRJ

BUSS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion For Extension Of Time To

File A First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 15.) This Court entered a previous order

permitting Plaintiff to amend his original complaint and giving him until October 28,

2011 to do so. (Doc. 14.) In his motion, Plaintiff asks the Court for an extension of time

within which to file his amended complaint. In support of the requested extension,

Plaintiff states he has had difficulty in gaining access to the law library at Gulf

Correctional Institution, the prison where he is incarcerated. Plaintiff does not specify

the length of the requested extension so the Court will give Plaintiff until November 30,

2011 to prepare and file his amended complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned no further

extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion For Extension Of Time To File A First Amended

Complaint (Doc. 15) is GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff shall complete the civil rights complaint form for prisoner litigants

for actions arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in full and file on or before

November 30, 2011.

Case 4:11-cv-00046-MP-GRJ Document 16 Filed 11/01/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. Failure to comply with this Order in the allotted time will result in a

recommendation to the district judge that this cause be dismissed. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 1 day of November, 2011. 

st

s/ Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 4:11-cv-46-MP-GRJ

Case 4:11-cv-00046-MP-GRJ Document 16 Filed 11/01/11 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Richland Resources Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





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:  September 21, 2011By:
/s/ Kenneth A. GoggansKenneth A. GoggansChief Executive Officer
# C_2011135EN.01000201.xml

| 5.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

4 May 2011

2011/C 135/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4882 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 120,62 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4568 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89990 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0105 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2826 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8710 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,209 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 264,68 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7095 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9366 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1100 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,2877 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3727 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4175 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,5623 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8780 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,8265 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 596,48 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,8817 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,6636 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3815 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 727,06 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4304 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,864 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,5300 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,601 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,3579 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,2174 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 66,1800 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4882

JPY

Japanese yen

120,62

DKK

Danish krone

7,4568

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89990

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0105

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2826

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8710

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,209

HUF

Hungarian forint

264,68

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7095

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9366

RON

Romanian leu

4,1100

TRY

Turkish lira

2,2877

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3727

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4175

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,5623

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8780

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,8265

KRW

South Korean won

1 596,48

ZAR

South African rand

9,8817

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,6636

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3815

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 727,06

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4304

PHP

Philippine peso

63,864

RUB

Russian rouble

40,5300

THB

Thai baht

44,601

BRL

Brazilian real

2,3579

MXN

Mexican peso

17,2174

INR

Indian rupee

66,1800

---

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

1

Source

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM OUR BALANCE
SHEET AT MARCH 31, 2000 AND OUR CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,527,903
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,277,845
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,959,395
<PP&E>                                         726,566<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,147,830
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,009,123
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  5,000,000
<COMMON>                                       107,870
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,969,163)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,147,830
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,358,833
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,611
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,354,731)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,354,731)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,354,731)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)
<FN>
<F1>NET AFTER DEDUCTING ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION.
</FN>


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2450 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2450

 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit the grounds of 
deportability for certain relatives of members of the Armed Forces and 
                   veterans, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 10, 2019

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit the grounds of 
deportability for certain relatives of members of the Armed Forces and 
                   veterans, 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 ``Protecting Immigrant Gold Star and 
Military Families Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITING GROUNDS OF DEPORTABILITY FOR RELATIVES OF MEMBERS OF 
              THE ARMED FORCES AND VETERANS.

    Section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(e) Alien Relatives of Members of the Armed Forces and 
Veterans.--The provisions of this section shall not apply to an alien 
who--
            ``(1) is--
                    ``(A) the spouse, widow or widower, parent, son or 
                daughter, or sibling of--
                            ``(i) a member of the Armed Forces of the 
                        United States; or
                            ``(ii) a veteran (as that term is defined 
                        in section 101 of title 38, United States 
                        Code); or
                    ``(B) eligible for the Gold Star lapel button under 
                section 1126 of title 10, United States Code; and
            ``(2) has not been convicted of--
                    ``(A) a felony;
                    ``(B) a significant misdemeanor (as such term is 
                defined in section 2 of the Restoring Respect for 
                Immigrant Service in Uniform Act); or
                    ``(C) three or more misdemeanors that are not 
                significant misdemeanors, each of which occurred on a 
                different date, and arose out of separate conduct; and
            ``(3) is not otherwise a threat to national security or 
        public safety.''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2011198EN.01000102.xml

| 6.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6206 — Grupo Iberdrola/Caja Rural de Navarra/Renovables de la Ribera)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 198/02

On 30 June 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 Spanish language 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 32011M6206. 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 32011M6206. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:10cr63-SPM

NICHOLAS McCRAY, 

 

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendant proposed to enter a guilty plea to Count One of this information. The

district judge referred this matter to me for purposes of hearing Defendant's proposed

change of plea pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 and to enter a report and recommendation

as to whether to accept the change of plea. All parties consented to this procedure, and

the written consent has been entered. After hearing, it is found that:

1. Defendant understands the nature of the charge or charges as to which the

plea is offered.

2. Defendant understands the right to trial by jury, to persist in a plea of not

guilty, to assistance of counsel at trial, and to confront and cross examine adverse

witnesses, and understands the right against compelled self-incrimination.

3. Defendant understands the maximum possible sentence if the guilty plea is

accepted, including the effect of a supervised release term, understands that the
Page 2 of 3

sentencing guidelines are advisory, and understands that the court has discretion to

depart from those guidelines and sentence up to the statutory maximum sentence.

4. The plea of guilty by the Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made,

and is not the result of force or threats, or of promises except for promises contained in

the written plea agreement between the parties.

5. Defendant is competent to plead guilty.

6. Defendant understands that answers given by the Defendant during the plea

colloquy, which were under oath, may be later used against the Defendant in

prosecution for perjury or false statement.

7. There is a factual basis for Defendant's guilty plea.

8. There is a plea agreement which should be accepted by the court. Defendant

understands the terms of the plea agreement.

9. Defendant has been informed of his right to be charged by an indictment by a

grand jury, has knowingly and voluntarily waived the indictment, and consents to

proceed with an information.

10. Defendant has voluntarily consented to go forward with this plea of guilty

before me. Defendant knowingly and voluntarily has waived the ten day period for filing

objections to this report and recommendation, and agrees that written objections, if any,

must be filed within twenty-four hours from receipt of a copy of this report and

recommendation. The United States also consents to this procedure, including the

shorter period for objections.

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the court ACCEPT the plea agreement

and defendant's plea of guilty.

Case No. 4:10cr63-SPM
Page 3 of 3

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on August 5, 2010. 

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 24 hours after receiving a copy of this report and

recommendation.

Case No. 4:10cr63-SPM
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv452-SPM/WCS

PROCEEDS OF LAWSUIT, 

UP TO $337,000.00, and

LOUISE GIBSON,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Government filed this complaint seeking forfeiture of the proceeds of a

lawsuit on October 18, 2010. Doc. 1. Claimant Louise Gibson filed an answer and

claim for assets subject to the forfeiture. Doc. 5. A Scheduling order was entered on

March 4, 2011, doc. 6, and the parties have had opportunity for discovery and

conference. A unilateral Rule 26(f) report was filed in mid-April, doc. 7, and nothing else

was received until June 17, 2011, when the United States filed a motion for forfeiture of

property. Doc. 8. That motion indicates that a settlement agreement has been reached

with claimant Louise B. Gibson, through her attorney Clifford Davis. Doc. 8-1, p. 2. The

Case 4:10-cv-00452-SPM-WCS Document 9 Filed 06/20/11 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

settlement agreement provides that "$6,900.00 will be returned to claimant, and the

United States will forfeit the remaining $112,156.63." Id. The agreement is attached to

the motion, doc. 8-2, and contains the signature of claimant Louise B. Gibson, and her

attorney. Doc. 8-2 (Exhibit D).1 

As the parties have settled this dispute, it is recommended that the settlement

agreement be adopted, the motion for forfeiture granted, and a forfeiture order entered

to implement the settlement. As counsel for claimant Louise Gibson did not enter an

appearance in this case, I direct that a copy of this order also be provided to Clifford

Davis, Esq., at the address provided in the settlement agreement. Doc. 8-2, p. 10.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall provide a copy of this

report and recommendation to attorney Clifford Davis at the address provided in the

settlement agreement. Doc. 8-2.

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the motion for

decree of forfeiture, doc. 8, be GRANTED, the settlement agreement be APPROVED,

and the parties ORDERED to comply with the settlement agreement. 

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 20, 2011.

 S/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

 The motion indicated that a proposed decree of forfeiture was submitted with

the motion, but it was not.

Case No. 4:10cv452-SPM/WCS

Case 4:10-cv-00452-SPM-WCS Document 9 Filed 06/20/11 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days

after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the

scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:10cv452-SPM/WCS

Case 4:10-cv-00452-SPM-WCS Document 9 Filed 06/20/11 Page 3 of 3
Page 1 of 2

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 Defendant, Dixie County’s Unopposed Motion To

Stay, Or, In The Alternative, For Extension of Time To Serve Expert Disclosures. (Doc.

50.) Defendant requests that the Court stay Defendant’s obligation to serve expert

reports by June 3, 2011 or granted it an extension of time to do so after it receives

Plaintiff’s expert reports.

 On June16, 2011 the Court entered an order (Doc. 55) granting Plaintiff’s

Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order. (Doc. 39.) As a result, the deadline for

Defendant to serve its expert reports was extended to July 1, 2011, approximately one

month after Plaintiff is required to serve its expert reports. As such Defendant’s motion

is moot because Defendant no longer requires an extension of time to serve its expert

reports and there no longer is any reason to stay Defendant’s obligation to serve expert

Case 1:10-cv-00224-SPM-GRJ Document 56 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

reports.

Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is ORDERED:

 Defendant, Dixie County’s Unopposed Motion To Stay, Or, In The Alternative,

For Extension of Time To Serve Expert Disclosures (Doc. 50) is DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED this 21 day of June, 2011. 

st h

s/ Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:10-cv-00224-SPM-GRJ Document 56 Filed 06/21/11 Page 2 of 2