alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  FOX
FAMILY  WORLDWIDE,   INC.'S  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AND  IS  QUALIFIED  IN  ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS)
</LEGEND>

<S>                              <C>                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS             12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                JUN-30-1998        JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                   JUL-01-1997        JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     JUN-30-1998        JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                              90,313<F1>         55,062<F1>
<SECURITIES>                             0                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                      191,690            166,625
<ALLOWANCES>                        (1,594)            (2,493)
<INVENTORY>                        453,608            538,219
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         0<F2>              0<F2>
<PP&E>                              80,788             91,486
<DEPRECIATION>                     (19,983)           (33,390)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   2,516,024          2,471,874
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    0<F2>               0<F2>
<BONDS>                            876,632            918,735
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              345,000            345,000
<PREFERRED>                              0                  0
<COMMON>                                16                 16
<OTHER-SE>                          30,380            (67,759)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     2,516,024          2,471,874
<SALES>                            664,458            635,273
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   664,458            635,273
<CGS>                             (356,664)          (315,504)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     (544,985)          (525,994)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    (6,798)            (4,582)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                (134,002)          (169,107)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (21,327)           (64,410)
<INCOME-TAX>                       (3,446)            (1,989)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (24,773)           (66,399)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0                  0
<CHANGES>                                0                  0
<NET-INCOME>                       (24,773)           (66,399)
<EPS-BASIC>                            0<F3>              0<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0<F3>              0<F3>
<FN>
<F1>    INCLUDES RESTRICTED CASH OF $8,204
<F2>    THE COMPANY HAS ELECTED TO PRESENT AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET
<F3>    EPS IS NOT APPLICABLE AS THE COMPANY HAS NO PUBLICLY TRADED EQUITY
</FN>


</TABLE>
# C_2009280EN.01000302.xml

| 20.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5653 — GDA/Furukawa-SKY/MITSUI/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 280/03

On 11 November 2009, 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 32009M5653. 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 32009M5653. 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

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

PAULA A. WASHINGTON,

o/b/o MPB,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00186-MP-GRJ

MICHAEL J ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’ Motion for Extension of Time to File

Memorandum of Law. (Doc. 12.) Plaintiff requests an eight day extension of time to file

her memorandum. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, counsel certifies that Defendant’s

counsel does not object to the requested relief. 

Accordingly, upon due consideration, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to

File Memorandum of Law (Doc. 12) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file her memorandum

by February 10, 2011. Because Plaintiff’s deadline has been extended, the deadline

for Defendant to file his memorandum is also extended. Defendant shall file his

memorandum by April 12, 2011.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3 day of February, 2011. 

rd

s/ Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

THOMAS K. ROGERS,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No.: 3:10cv463/LAC/EMT

KENNETH S. TUCKER,

Respondent.

_____________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Petitioner commenced this action

on November 5, 2010, by filing a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 1). On July 6, 2011,

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition due to Petitioner’s abandonment of the case, as

evidenced by his failure, upon his release from the Florida Department of Corrections, to provide

the court and Respondent with a current mailing address, and the fact that several documents sent

to Petitioner by Respondent and the court at Petitioner’s address of record were returned as 

undeliverable (see doc. 32). On July 11, 2011, the court directed Petitioner to file a response to the

motion to dismiss within thirty (30) days (doc. 33). The copy of the order mailed to Petitioner was

returned as undeliverable (doc. 34). On October 14, 2011, the court entered an order giving

Petitioner fourteen (14) days in which to notify the court of his continued interest in this case (doc.

37). The copy of the order mailed to Petitioner was again returned undeliverable (doc. 38). On

November 4, 2011, the court issued an order requiring Petitioner to show cause, within twenty-one

(21) days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court

(doc. 39). The time for compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed with no response

from Petitioner; nor has the court been notified that Petitioner did not receive a copy of that order.

Case 3:10-cv-00463-LC-EMT Document 40 Filed 12/01/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to comply with an

order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 1 day of December 2011. st

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. 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

objections shall be served upon all 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 (11th Cir. 1988).

Case No: 3:10cv463/LAC/EMT

Case 3:10-cv-00463-LC-EMT Document 40 Filed 12/01/11 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

Case No. 5:11cv19-RH/WCS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DONALD R. IFERD,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:11cv19-RH/CJK

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES

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

recommendation, ECF No. 20. No objections have been filed. Upon 

consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

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

opinion. The plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees, ECF No. 18, is GRANTED. 

The Secretary must pay $873.87 as attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to 

Justice Act.

SO ORDERED on November 1, 2011.

Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 5:11-cv-00019-RH-CJK Document 21 Filed 11/02/11 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

WAYNE M. BEATON,

Petitioner,

vs. 3:09cv353/MCR/MD

WALTER A. MCNEIL,

Respondent.

O R D E R

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

recommendation dated September 25, 2009. The petitioner has been furnished a

copy of the report and recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), and I have

made a de novo determination of those portions to which an objection has been

made.

Having considered the report and recommendation and all objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the report and recommendation should be

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The petitioner’s motion to voluntarily dismiss (doc. 8) is GRANTED.

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, and the clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of October, 2009.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

LOUIS REED, JR, 

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00438-MP-CAS

EDWIN G BUSS, et al., 

Respondents.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation. (Doc. 41). 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). The time for filing objections has passed, and none have

been filed. Having considered the Report and Recommendation, the Court agrees that it

represents a successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed without prior permission from the

Eleventh Circuit. As such, it should be dismissed. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated

by reference in this order. 

2. Petitioner's second amended § 2254 petition (Doc. 16) is DENIED. A certificate

of appealability is DENIED, and leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of January, 2014

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2495 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2495

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish an exception to 
the penalty on early distributions from qualified plans for individuals 
               diagnosed with certain terminal illnesses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 18, 2019

 Mr. Burr (for himself and Mr. Bennet) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish an exception to 
the penalty on early distributions from qualified plans for individuals 
               diagnosed with certain terminal illnesses.

    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 ``Kathryn Manginelli Act of 2019'' or 
the ``Compassionate Retirement Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO PENALTY ON EARLY DISTRIBUTIONS FROM QUALIFIED 
              PLANS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH A TERMINAL ILLNESS.

    (a) In General.--Section 72(t)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(H) Terminal illness.--
                            ``(i) In general.--Distributions which are 
                        made to the employee on or after the date on 
                        which such employee has been diagnosed with a 
                        terminal illness.
                            ``(ii) Definition.--For purposes of this 
                        subparagraph, the term `terminal illness' means 
                        an illness or physical condition, as diagnosed 
                        by a physician (as defined in section 
                        1861(r)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 
                        U.S.C. 1395x(r)(1))), which can reasonably be 
                        expected to result in death in 7 years or less 
                        after the date of such diagnosis.
                            ``(iii) Documentation.--For purposes of 
                        this subparagraph, an employee shall not be 
                        considered to have been diagnosed with a 
                        terminal illness described in clause (i) unless 
                        such employee furnishes sufficient evidence in 
                        such form and manner as the Secretary may 
                        require.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to distributions after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JEAN E JOSEPH, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:11cv34-MP-CAS

OFFICER R. GORMAN, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated March 12, 2012. (Doc. 51). 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). No objections were

filed. 

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. Defendant's motion to dismiss( doc. 38) is GRANTED in part and DENIED

in part. Plaintiff's equal protection and Fourth Amendment claims are DISMISSED for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the claim against defendant in

his official capacity is DISMISSED due to the Eleventh Amendment, but otherwise, the

motion is DENIED. 

3. This case is REMANDED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of September, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:11-cv-00034-MP-CAS Document 65 Filed 09/17/12 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ERIC DAVID HARRIS a/k/a, 

DAVID JOSEPH NORTHRUP,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-76/RS-MD

WALTER A. MCNEIL, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

UORDER

Before me is the letter from Mr. Jon D. Depriest (Doc. 37) which “mov[es] this 

honorable court to include my name to the names in case no. 5:10cv76-RS/MD.” This 

letter shall be construed as a Motion to Intervene. 

Because the case has been dismissed with prejudice and is now closed (See Doc. 

34), the Motion to Intervene (Doc. 37) is DENIED. 

ORDERED on June 16, 2011.

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:10-cv-00076-RS-MD Document 38 Filed 06/16/11 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

OTIS BLAXTON,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv90/MCR/EMT

TRINITY SERVICE GROUPS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated April 12, 2010 (Doc. 5). Plaintiff has been furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and has 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. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), this cause is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE to Plaintiff’s initiating a new cause of action accompanied by payment of the

$350.00 filing fee in its entirety.

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of May, 2010.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JIMMY KINSLOW,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 4:10cv440-SPM/WCS

THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

ORDER ON RULE 72 OBJECTIONS

This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Rule 72 Objections to

Magistrates’ February 15, 2011 Order. Doc. 17. A district court judge may

reconsider pretrial matters that have been referred to a magistrate judge “where

it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or

contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A). Under this standard, the court will

affirm the magistrate judge’s order unless the court has a definite and firm

conviction that error has occurred. Linea Navira De Cabotaje, C.A. v. Mar Caribe

De Navegacion, C.A., 169 F.Supp.2d 1341, 1355 (M.D. Fla. 2001). 

In this case, the magistrate judge correctly determined that Plaintiff’s
Page 2 of 3

transfer to the custody of the New Mexico Corrections Department rendered his

claim for declaratory relief moot. McKinnon v. Talladega County, 745 F.2d 1360,

1365 (11th Cir. 1984). A declaratory judgment is a form of equitable relief that is

prospective in nature, with the aim to prevent future injuries. Adler v. Duval

County Sch. Bd., 112 F.3d 1475, 1477 (11th Cir. 1997). Because Plaintiff is no

longer in Florida, he has no active controversy concerning his future treatment in

Florida. Issuance of a declaratory judgment in these circumstances would

constitute an impermissible advisory opinion. Id.

With respect to Plaintiff’s claims for damages, as noted by Plaintiff, the

magistrate judge overlooked Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim when he ruled that Plaintiff

could not sue any Defendants in their official capacities due to Eleventh

Amendment immunity. The Eleventh amendment is not a bar to nominal

damages against a defendant in his official capacity under the RLUIPA. Smith v.

Allen, 502 F.3d 1255, 1276 (11th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 

1. Plaintiff’s Rule 72 Objections to Magistrates’ February 15, 2011

Order (doc. 17) is sustained as to his RLUIPA claim. In all other respects, the

objections are overruled.

2. Plaintiff shall have up to and including April 11, 2011 to file his 

.

CASE NO.: 4:10cv440-SPM/WCS
Page 3 of 3

second amended complaint.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of March, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

CASE NO.: 4:10cv440-SPM/WCS
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 January 31, 2012 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------











|Date:  March 20, 2012
|---------------------
|                     
|By:                  
|                     
|