alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2

 IN T H E U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ARMANDO J. DOCTOR,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:11cv226/MCR/CJK

ARNP NICHOLS,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This civil rights case is before the court upon plaintiff’s motion to dismiss.

(Doc. 22). Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

this action should be dismissed.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (doc. 22) be GRANTED, and this cause

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2. That all other pending motions be DENIED as moot. 

3. That the clerk be directed to close the file.

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

/s/Charles J. Kahn, Jr.

CHARLES J. KAHN, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-00226-MCR-CJK Document 23 Filed 11/01/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

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

fourteen 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 (11 Cir. 1988). th

Case No: 3:11cv226/MCR/CJK

Case 3:11-cv-00226-MCR-CJK Document 23 Filed 11/01/11 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

BARRY TRYNELL DAVIS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:10cv233/SPM/EMT

JOHN D. POWERS, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). On September 14, 2010, this

court entered an order giving Plaintiff thirty (30) days in which to pay an initial partial filing fee in

the amount of $3.66 (Doc. 5). Plaintiff failed to respond to the order; therefore, on October 26,

2010, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff 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. 8). The time

for compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed, and Plaintiff has not paid the initial

partial filing fee.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

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

order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 19 day of November 2010. th

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 2 of 2

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: 5:10cv233/SPM/EMT
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.26

                             TWO WISCONSIN CIRCLE

                        ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO OFFICE LEASE
                        ------------------------------

     THIS ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO OFFICE LEASE (this "Addendum") is made and entered 
into this 17 day of July, 1997, by and between TWO WISCONSIN CIRCLE JOINT
          --        ----
VENTURE, a Maryland joint venture, hereinafter called "Lessor," and HEALTHCARE 
FINANCIAL PARTNERS, INC., formerly known as Health Partners Financial 
Corporation, a Delaware corporation, hereinafter called "Lessee."

     WITNESSETH:

     WHEREAS, by Office Lease dated the 4th day of January 1996, as amended by 
Addendum No. 1 to Office Lease dated the 26th day of July 1996, and Addendum No.
2 to Office Lease dated the 13th day of August 1996 (as so amended, the 
"Lease"), Lessor currently leases to Lessee approximately 5,414 square feet of 
rentable area on the third (3rd) floor (the "Third Floor Space"), and 
approximately 1,347 square feet of rentable area on the fourth (4th) floor (the 
"Existing Fourth Floor Space", which together with the Third Floor Space is 
sometimes referred to herein as the "Existing Demised Premises"), all in the 
building situated at Two Wisconsin Circle, Chevy Chase, Maryland (the 
"Building"); and

     WHEREAS, Lessee occupies approximately 1,101 square feet of rentable area 
on the fourth (4th) floor of the Building (the "Sublet Space") under a Sublease 
with Gerber-Miller Investments, a Maryland limited partnership; and

     WHEREAS, Lessee desires to surrender possession of the Third Floor Space, 
and simultaneously expand the Existing Fourth Floor Space by adding thereto and 
incorporating therein, upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the 
Sublet Space and additional space on the fourth (4th) floor of the Building 
comprising approximately 13,129 square feet of rentable area (the "Additional 
Fourth Floor Space"); and

     WHEREAS, upon such surrender of the Third Floor Space and expansion of the
Existing Fourth Floor Space to include the Sublet Space and the Additional
Fourth Floor Space, the entire premises leased to and by Lessee under the Lease,
as amended hereby, shall be approximately 15,577 square feet of rentable area on
the fourth (4th) floor of the Building (the "New Demised Premises").

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements 
hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto do mutually agree that the Lease shall
be and is hereby amended to provide as follows, all capitalized terms being as 
defined in the Lease unless otherwise noted herein:
# C_2010023EN.01000101.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 23/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 23/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5656 — SFR Developpement/Europ Assistance Holding/Ocealis)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 23/01

On 14 January 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 French 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 32010M5656. 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 32010M5656. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

SLEP-TONE ENTERTAINMENT CORP., 

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-32/RS-CJK

FAYE JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

UORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (Doc. 52) is DENIED. 

ORDERED on July 8, 2011.

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 58 Filed 07/08/11 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

STUART W. RYAN,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10cv336/RS-MD

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE 

UNIVERSITY OF WEST FLORIDA,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER

The parties have complied with the Scheduling and Mediation Order (Doc. 25) by

filing a Third Amended Joint Report of Parties’ Planning Meeting (Doc. 27).

IT IS ORDERED that the Scheduling and Mediation Order (Doc. 25) and Pretrial

Order (Doc. 26) shall govern this case.

ORDERED on December 8, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Navidec, Inc. (the "Corporation") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Pat Mawhinney Chief
Financial Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

     (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 Corporation.


Navidec, Inc.



/s/Pat Mawhinney
Chief Financial Officer
March 26, 2003
1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosing 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
15-d-15(f)) for the company and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b.
    
    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.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluations; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially
affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over
financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the
audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.
  By: /s/ Frank Abbott
 2
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Voice Assist, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Metcalf, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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.











/s/ Michael Metcalf


Michael Metcalf


Chief Executive Officer


May 16, 2011
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 40529 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. JUAN MANUEL RAMIREZ

- VILLALZANA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:15

- CR

- 847

- 1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Juan Manuel Ramirez

- Villalzana appeals his 46

- month, within

guidelines sentence for illegal reentry, 8 U.S.C. § 1326, asserting that the district court erroneously applied a 16

- level “crime of violence” enhancement, under former U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) , based on his prior Texas convictions for burglary of a habitation. The enhancement was improper, Ramirez

Villalzana contends, because the Texas burglary statute, Texas Penal Code

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 18, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40529 Document: 00513997491 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2017No. 16

- 40529

2 § 30.02(a), does not categorically define a “generic” burglary of a dwelling and is not divisible in light of Mathis v. United States , 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016). We review the district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. See United States v. Calderon

- Pena , 383 F.3d 254, 256 (5th Cir. 2004). In Mathis , the Supreme C ourt explained that the modified categorical approach may be used to distinguish only between alternative elements of a statutory offense, not alternative means of satisfying a single element. 136 S. Ct. at 2249

- 50. W hether the district court erred thus turns on whether , in light of Mathis , § 30.02(a) ’s three subsections constitute elements or means

. While the instant appeal was pending, we concluded that § 30.02(a) is a divisible, elements

- based statute

. See United States v. Uribe , 838 F.3d 667, 669

- 71 (5th Cir. 2016)

. Consequently, “ the modified categorical approach applies to determine which of the provisions of § 30.02(a) was the basis of [ Ramirez

Villalzana’s ] conviction [s] .” Id

. at 671. O ur review of the permissible record documents reveals that Ramirez

Villalzana’s prior convictions were based on § 30.02(a)(1) and were therefore “generic” burglaries

. See United States v. Conde

- Castaneda , 753 F.3d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 2014) ; s ee United States v. Constante , 544 F.3d 584, 585 (5th Cir. 2008)

. Accordingly , t he district court properly appl ied the 16

- level “crime of violence” enhancement. AFFIRMED. Case: 16-40529 Document: 00513997491 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2017
Opinion issued February 3 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 14
- 00211
- CV

——————————— CROWN COMMUNICATION LLC D/B/A CROWN COMM LLC , Appella nt V. T10 UNISON SITE MANAGEME NT LLC AND THE ESTATE OF CHARLOTTE MCGREW , Appell e e s
On Appeal from the 25th District Court Colorado County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 23350

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Crown Communication LLC , ha s filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. More than ten days have elapsed since the filing of the motion , and no party has objected to dismissa l. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 10.3(a). No opinion has issued2

in this appeal. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss all other pending motions a s moot. PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle

.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted**

**pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Ugo DeBlasi, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the quarterly report of Celera Corporation on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 28, 2009 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such quarterly report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof Celera Corporation. 

Date: May 11, 2009 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2011213EN.01002301.xml

| 20.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/23

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

19 July 2011

2011/C 213/08

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4160 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 111,77 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4564 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87890 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2300 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1607 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8620 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,480 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 271,50 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7093 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0283 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2580 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3517 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3273 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3534 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,0387 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6628 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7220 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 500,74 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,8639 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,1539 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4433 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 101,51 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2572 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,610 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,7450 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,373 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2252 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,5755 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 63,0120 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4160

JPY

Japanese yen

111,77

DKK

Danish krone

7,4564

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87890

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2300

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1607

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8620

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,480

HUF

Hungarian forint

271,50

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7093

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0283

RON

Romanian leu

4,2580

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3517

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3273

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3534

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,0387

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6628

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7220

KRW

South Korean won

1 500,74

ZAR

South African rand

9,8639

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,1539

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4433

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 101,51

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2572

PHP

Philippine peso

60,610

RUB

Russian rouble

39,7450

THB

Thai baht

42,373

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2252

MXN

Mexican peso

16,5755

INR

Indian rupee

63,0120

---

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

1

Source

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO.: 3:11cr19/MCR

ROGER RAY PRICE,

 /

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge, to which there has been no timely objections, and subject to this Court’s

consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(2), the plea of

guilty of the defendant, ROGER RAY PRICE, to the two count indictment against him

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

directed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of April, 2011.

 s/M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE