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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ROOSEVELT H. WOODSON,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv224/RS-EMT

GRACEVILLE CORRECTIONAL.

FACILITY,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8). 

Plaintiff has not filed objections.

IT IS ORDERED:

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

incorporated in this Order.

2. This case is dismissed without prejudice because of Plaintiff’s failure to

comply with an Order of the court.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on December 1, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOSE ULISES SILVAS-RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv373-RH/WCS

ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner initiated this § 2241 habeas petition on September 1, 2010. Doc. 1. 

Petitioner did not pay the filing fee, nor did he submit an in forma pauperis motion. An

order was entered on September 13, 2010, advising Petitioner to correct that deficiency

b either paying the filing fee or filing the in forma pauperis motion. Doc. 3. Petitioner

was given until October 13th to comply. Id. By October 25th, Petitioner had not

complied and I entered a report and recommendation to dismiss this action. Doc. 4. 

On November 1, 2010, the Petitioner’s copy of the report and recommendation

was returned to the court as undeliverable. Doc. 5. On November 3, 2010, Petitioner

filed an amended § 2241 petition. Doc. 6. Petitioner still has not paid the filing fee, nor
Page 2 of 3

filed an in forma pauperis motion. Because of Petitioner’s failure to comply, this case

should be dismissed.

Moreover, the case should also be dismissed because in the amended § 2241

petition, doc. 6, Petitioner states he was deported on October 20, 2010. Id., at 1. The

B.I.A. dismissed Petitioner’s appeal and denied his motion to re-open on October 7,

2010. Id. In this case, then, Petitioner is not merely challenging his detention at the

Wakulla County jail under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150

L.Ed.2d 653 (2001), but is attempting to challenge the order of removal. 

This court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such a petition. The REAL ID Act of

2005, Pub.L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (2005), strips district courts of habeas corpus

jurisdiction over orders of removal. Section 106(a)(1) of the Act requires that the courts

of appeals shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of

removal. Therefore, even if Petitioner had paid the $5.00 filing fee or belatedly filed an

in forma pauperis motion, this case would have to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the amended

habeas petition, doc. 6, be DISMISSED due to Petitioner’s failure to either pay the filing

fee or submit an in forma pauperis motion, and because this Court lacks jurisdiction to

review an order of removal. 

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on December 8, 2010.

 S/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No. 4:10cv373-RH/WCS
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. 4:10cv373-RH/WCS
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following RegistrationStatements Nos. 333-20549, 333-65459, 333-38568, 333-88836, 333-129922 and 333-148139 on Form S-8, Nos. 333-123246, 333-138067 and 333-148186 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 27, 2007, relating to the financial statements and financialstatement schedule of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty inIncome Taxes*in 2007 and the adoption of FASB Statement No. 123R, *Share-Based Payment*in 2006), and the effectiveness of Powerwave Technologies, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Reporton Form 10-K of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 28, 2008. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Costa Mesa, California 

March 2, 2009
# Human Rights Day, Bill of Rights Day, and Human Rights Week, 2007

Americans value deeply our ability to speak, assemble, and worship freely. As a Nation, we can help freedom-loving people everywhere build a world in which these rights are honored and respected. During Human Rights Day, Bill of Rights Day, and Human Rights Week, we celebrate the freedoms guaranteed to all Americans and protected in our Constitution's Bill of Rights. 

Many of these fundamental freedoms are still denied to people in countries around the world. The United States continues to stand with those who work to build democracy and secure the blessings of liberty. Individuals are struggling to create free societies in Cuba, Belarus, and Syria. And the day will come when they, and the citizens of other lands such as North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe, and Sudan, will no longer be restricted from practicing their faith, voicing their opinions, and enjoying the many blessings of freedom. 

Freedom and dignity are God's gifts, and during Human Rights Day, Bill of Rights Day, and Human Rights Week, we look forward with confidence to the eventual triumph of human rights for all mankind. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I , GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim December 10, 2007, as Human Rights Day; December 15, 2007, as Bill of Rights Day; and the week beginning December 10, 2007, as Human Rights Week. I call upon the people of the United States to mark these observances with appropriate ceremonies and activities. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this sixth day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-second. 

[FR Doc. 07-6050

Billing code 3195-01-P
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DWIGHT J PORTER,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-00206-RS-GRJ

BAXTER, et al,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

The Florida Department of Corrections has filed under seal information regarding

addresses for Defendants Baxter and Tyus. (Doc. 39.) The Clerk of Court shall

forward this information to the United States Marshals Service (USMS) in confidence to

enable service of process to be effected. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The clerk shall re-issue summonses for Defendants Baxter and Tyus,

indicating that they have sixty (60) days in which to file a response to the complaint, and

refer the summonses, a copy of the Amended Complaint (Doc. 25), a copy of this order,

the completed USM-285 form, the completed NUSM-1 form and a copy thereof, and a

AO-399 form to the United States Marshals Service (USMS). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 4(c)(2), all costs of service shall be advanced by the United States. 

2. Pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the USMS

shall send a copy of the complaint, a copy of this order, a completed NUSM-1 form and

a copy thereof, a AO-399 form, and a prepaid means of compliance to Defendants

through first class mail. The USMS shall mail the forms to Defendants as soon as
Page 2 of 2

possible so that service or waiver of service can be completed within 120 days from the

date of entry of this order on the docket.

3. If after thirty (30) days from the mailing of the waiver of service forms

and the complaint Defendants have not returned the waiver of service form

(NUSM-1 form), the USMS shall personally serve Defendants pursuant to Rule 4(e)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon completion of service, the USMS shall

file with the clerk the return and a written statement of all costs incurred of making such

personal service.

4. The clerk shall refer this file to the undersigned if the waiver form is

returned for insufficient address or for similar reason, if service on either Defendant is

returned unexecuted, or if the USMS has filed a statement of costs incurred for making

personal service.

5. Defendants shall have sixty (60) days in which to file a response to the

complaint. 

6. No motion for summary judgment shall be filed by any party prior to entry

of an initial scheduling order without permission of the court.

7. Counsel for Defendants shall file a notice of appearance within twenty

(20) days of the date of service of the complaint.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9 day of March, 2011. 

th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 5:10-cv-00206-RS -GRJ
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 21
- 00117
- CR
MICHAEL DAVID WILLIAMS , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 13th District Court Navarro County, Texas Trial Court No. D34123CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this matter, appellant, Michael David Williams , challenges the trial court’s denial of his pro se “motions for transcripts of prio r mistrial.” The right of appeal in a criminal case is a statutorily

- created right. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 44.02; see also Bayless v. State , 91 S.W.3d 801, 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Generally, a criminal defendant may only appeal from a final judgment. State v. Sellers , 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Because appellant is not appealing from a judgment of convictionWilliams v. State Page 2

or an otherwise appealable order, we have no jurisdi ction. See Ragston v. State , 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (“’[T]he standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law.’” (quoting Abbott v. State , 271 S.W.3d 694, 69 6

- 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008))). We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant may file a motion for rehearing with this Court within fifteen days after the opinion and judgment are rendered. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 49.1. If appellant desires to have the decision of this Court reviewed by filing a petition for discretionary review, that petition must be filed with the Court of Criminal Appeals within thirty days after either this Court’s judgment was rendered or the day that last timel y motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court. See id. at R. 68.2(a).

T OM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray , Just ice Johnson, a nd Visiting Justice Davis 1 A ppeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed June 16, 2021 Do not publish [CR 25 ]

1 The Honorable Rex Davis , Senior Justice of the Tenth Court of Appeals , sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court

. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.
# C_2011029EN.01000702.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6039 — GE/Dresser)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 29/04

On 4 January 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 32011M6039. 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 32011M6039. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ANTHONY J. FAILS,

Plaintiff,

v. 3:10cv401-WS

G.R. BYRD,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 5)

docketed October 28, 2010. The magistrate judge recommends that the plaintiff's

motion to dismiss be granted. 

The court has reviewed the record and has determined that the magistrate

judge's report and recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 5) is hereby

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order. 

2. The plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Case (doc. 4) is GRANTED.

3. The plaintiff's complaint, and this action, are DISMISSED without

prejudice.

4. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.
Page 2 of 2

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of November , 2010.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EXHIBIT 4.101
  OPTION AGREEMENT
   DRDGOLD LIMITED
 (“DRDGold”)
  Khumo Gold SPV (Pty) Ltd
 (“Khumo Gold”)
  DRD Gold South African Operations (Pty) LTD
 (“DRDSA”)


WHEREBY IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
  DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION
  Definitions
   “Act”
   “Agreement”
   “Business”
  “Business Day”
   “Closing”
  Closing Date
     “Companies Act”
  “Company”
    Duly Exercised”


“the Expiry Date”
    “Employee(s)”
   “the Employee Trust”
    “Khumo  Gold”
  
  ‘the Khumo Gold Parcel”
    “the Khumo Gold Option”
   “the Employee Trust Parcel”
    “the Employee Trust Parcel Option”
    “the Purchase Price”


“Parties” Party”
   “Purchaser”
  “Sale Shares”
   “the Share Sale Agreement”
   “The Signature Date”
   “ZAR”, “R” or “Rand””
  Interpretation


BACKGROUND AND RECORDALS


OPTION TO PURCHASE & OFFER TO SUBSCRIBE


PURCHASE PRICE
            CLOSING AND IMPLEMENTATION





FINANCIAL ASSISTENCE
            WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS


CONFIDENTIALITY
  Confidential information
 "Confidential Information"


Obligations
                Permitted disclosures


Public announcements
   
      WHOLE AGREEMENT, NO AMENDMENT


DOMICILIUM CITANDI ET EXECUTANDI
  domicilia citandi et executandi
        domicilium
 citandi et executandi vis-à-vis
  vis-à-vis th
      domicilium citandi et executandi
 th


domicilium citandi et executandi
           domicilium citandi et executandi
 NO CESSION OR ASSIGNMENT
    COSTS
         /s/ JWC Sayers JWC Sayers Chief Financial Officer For: DRDGOLD 18 November 2005


For: DRDSA
      /s/ MP Ncholo MP Ncholo Director For: KHUMO GOLD


“CHOSEN DOMICLIUM”
  DRDGold
         DRDSA
         KHUMO GOLD
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

TONNIEL MARQUIS BROWN,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv243/MCR/EMT

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1). On July 14, 2010, this court entered an order

(Doc. 3) directing Petitioner to file an amended petition on the form for use in § 2241 cases and pay

the filing fee or submit a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner failed to

comply with the order; therefore, on August 20, 2010, the court issued an order requiring Petitioner

to show cause, within twenty (20) days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to

comply with an order of the court (Doc. 4). The time for compliance with the show cause order has

now elapsed with no response from Petitioner.1

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Petitioner’s failure to comply

with an order of the court.

1 The order to show cause was returned to the court on August 25, 2010, marked “No

Longer At This Address” (Doc. 5). The same day, the clerk of court re-mailed the order to

Petitioner at the address indicated on the Florida Department of Corrections website

(http://www.dc.state.fl.us/ActiveInmates/). As of the date of this Report, the second mailing has

not been returned undeliverable, and the court has not received a response from Petitioner. 
Page 2 of 2

At Pensacola, Florida, this 13th day of September 2010.

/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. 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: 3:10cv243/MCR/EMT
EXHIBIT 32.2



CFO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, Kevin T. Michaels, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. (the Company),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended January 2, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); 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 9, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ KEVIN T. MICHAELS                                     
|                    |  |     |  | Kevin T. Michaels                                         
|                    |  |     |  | Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
|                    |  |     |  | Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
# C_2010307EN.01001301.xml

| 12.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 307/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 307/13

---

Special Report No 6/2010 ‘Has the reform of the sugar market achieved its main objectives?’

2010/C 307/06

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 6/2010 ‘Has the reform of the sugar market achieved its main objectives?’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://www.eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Communication and Reports Unit |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Communication and Reports Unit

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5309 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5309

   To amend the Second Morrill Act to authorize the transmission to 
Congress of annual reports prepared by colleges endowed under such Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 2018

 Ms. Adams (for herself, Mr. David Scott of Georgia, Mr. Luetkemeyer, 
and Mr. Kelly of Mississippi) introduced the following bill; which was 
                referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Second Morrill Act to authorize the transmission to 
Congress of annual reports prepared by colleges endowed under such Act.

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

SECTION 1. TRANSMISSION TO CONGRESS OF ANNUAL SECOND MORRILL ACT 
              REPORTS.

    Section 3 of the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 325; commonly 
known as the Second Morrill Act), is amended by adding at the end the 
following new sentences: ``Such annual report shall further include the 
amount of Federal and State allotments such college received in the 
preceding fiscal year under the Hatch Act of 1887 (7 U.S.C. 361a et 
seq.) and the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 341 et seq.). The Secretary of 
Agriculture shall transmit to Congress an annual report that includes 
the Federal and State allotments each such college reported pursuant to 
the preceding sentence for such year.''
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0249 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MAKUEEYAPEE WHITFORD,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 14 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 25 2021

03/25/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0249