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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ROBERT MEYER, Individually

and On Behalf of All Others 

Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10-cv-452/RS-EMT

THE ST. JOE COMPANY, 

ET AL., 

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Pursuant to Fla. N.D. Loc. 3.1(C), the venue for this case is transferred from the 

Pensacola Division to the Panama City Division. 

2. The Clerk shall change the case number for Weissman v. The St. Joe Co., et al. 

from 3:10cv504 to 5:11cv28. 

3. The Clerk shall change the case number for Meyer v. The St. Joe Co., et al. from 

3:10cv452 to 5:11cv27. 

4. All future pleadings and communications for the consolidated cases shall refer to 

Panama City Division and Case No. 5:11cv27/RS/EMT.

ORDERED on January 28, 2011

/S/ Richard Smoak

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5438 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5438

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow officers and 
  employees of the Department of the Treasury to provide to taxpayers 
           information regarding low-income taxpayer clinics.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 9, 2018

   Mr. Holding (for himself and Mr. Lewis of Georgia) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow officers and 
  employees of the Department of the Treasury to provide to taxpayers 
           information regarding low-income taxpayer clinics.

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

SECTION 1. PROVISION OF INFORMATION REGARDING LOW-INCOME TAXPAYER 
              CLINICS.

    Section 7526(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(6) Provision of information regarding qualified low-
        income taxpayer clinics.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
        of law, officers and employees of the Department of the 
        Treasury may--
                    ``(A) advise taxpayers of the availability of, and 
                eligibility requirements for receiving, advice and 
                assistance from qualified low-income taxpayer clinics 
                receiving funding under this section, and
                    ``(B) provide information regarding the location 
                of, and contact information for, such clinics.''.
                                 <all>
```
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133475 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133475 

 COA: 266035 

Oakland CC: 05-203232-FH 

JEFFREY DAVID-WILLIAM MIRACLE, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 1, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0618 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 26, 2007 

 Clerk
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families
 *Title:*
                     Child Care and Development Fund Annual Financial Report for Tribes (ACF-696T). *OMB No.:*
                     0970-0195. *Description:*
                     The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) annual financial reporting form (ACF-696T) provides a mechanism for Indian Tribes to report expenditures under the CCDF program. The CCDF program provides funds to Tribes, as well as States and Territories, to assist low-income families in obtaining child care so that they can work or attend training/education, and to improve the quality of care. Information collected via the ACF-696T allows the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to monitor Tribal expenditures and to estimate outlays, and may be used to prepare ACF budget submissions to Congress. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the existing form expires on April 30, 2008. *Respondents:*
                     Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations that are CCDF grantees. Annual Burden Estimates
Instrument
Number of respondents
Number of responses per respondent
Average burden hours per response
Total burden hoursACF-696T CCDF Financial Reporting Form for Tribes
232
1
8
1,856
 *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:*
                     1,856. *Additional Information:*
                     Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 204447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. E-mail address: 
                    *infocollection@acf.hhs.gov.* *OMB Comment:*
                     OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                    . Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Fax: 202-395-6974, Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families. November 29, 2007. Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.


[FR Doc. 07-5932 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-07-M
<page>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Simulations Plus, Inc., a California
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended August 31, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Walter S.
Woltosz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Momoko A. Beran, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant
of ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to
his/her 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


/S/ WALTER S. WOLTOSZ
----------------------------
Walter S. Woltosz
Chief Executive Officer
November 26, 2008


/S/ MOMOKO A. BERAN
----------------------------
Momoko A. Beran
Chief Financial Officer
November 26, 2008


(A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Simulations Plus, Inc. and will be retained by Simulations Plus,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.)
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 20, 2019.

________________ No. 3D18-0147 Lower Tribunal No. 02-18680

________________ 

### Antwann Rogers, Appellant,

vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Michae l Hanzman, Judge. Antwann Rogers, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant A ttorney General, for appellee.

Before SALTER, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.

MILLER, J.2 Antwann L. Rogers appeals the summary denial of his petition fo r writ of mandamus which sought to compel the State’s public records spec ialist to provide him with various documents. 1 As the State properly concedes, the record is devoid of claimed exemptions to disclosure, and there remains a disput ed factual issue as to whether the State possesses the requested records. Thus, we re verse and remand for an evidentiary hearing. See DeGregorio v. State, 205 So. 3d 84 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (reversing a denial of petition upon unsworn pleadings and rema nding for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the respondent had fur nished all records); Perez v. State, 980 So. 2d 1205, 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“If t he petition and response raise disputed factual issues, the trial court should resolve them upon proper evidence, which may include undisputed affidavits.”); Ra dford v. Brock, 914 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (reversing a dismissal of petiti on in the absence of sworn evidence and remanding for further proceedings). Reversed and remanded.

1 The State does not challenge the legal sufficiency of the peti tion. See generally Clay Cty. Educ. Ass’n v. Clay Cty. Sch. Bd., 144 So. 3d 708, 70 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing Polley v. Gardner, 98 So. 3d 648, 649 (Fla. 1st D CA 2012)).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ALL POINTS CAPITAL CORP.,

a foreign corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-116/RS-EMT

BOYD BROTHERS, INC., a Florida 

corporation, et al., 

Defendants,

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Stipulation Withdrawing Jury Trial Demand and Motion to Strike 

(Doc. 36). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Motion to Strike (Doc. 18) is Denied as moot. 

2. The jury demand is withdrawn, and this case will proceed as a bench trial. 

3. The hearing scheduled for August 16, 2011 is cancelled as to Plaintiff ALL 

POINTS CAPITAL CORP. 

ORDERED on August 10, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cv-00116-MW-EMT Document 37 Filed 08/10/11 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

      In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of Durban Roodepoort
Deep, Limited (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Mark Michael Wellesley-Wood, as Executive Chairman 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:

(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/ Mark Michael Wellesley-Wood
      --------------------------------------
      By: Mark Michael Wellesley-Wood
      Title: Executive Chairman

      Date:  December 3, 2004
*

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-2792

___________

Daniel O., a minor, by next friend, *

Dan O. and Rhonda O., *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

Missouri State Board of Education; * District of Missouri.

Missouri Department of Elementary and *

Secondary Education; State School for * [UNPUBLISHED]

the Severely Handicapped; Kearney R-1 *

School District, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 10, 2000

Filed: April 19, 2000 

___________

Before McMILLIAN and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and ROSENBAUM,*

 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.
-2-

Daniel O., a severely disabled child, is eligible for special education services

under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1487.

 Because of his seizures and the associated risk of head injury, Daniel does not attend

public school but receives public school instruction in his home for thirty hours per

week. Daniel's parents asked his teacher to administer Daniel's medication to him so

they could leave home during his instruction. Their request was denied based on the

state's requirement that a parent or other qualified adult (besides the teacher) remain in

the home during a student's homebound instruction. After exhausting administrative

remedies, Daniel's parents brought this action alleging a violation of the IDEA and §

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. The district court dismissed

Daniel's parents' complaint for failure to state a claim, and Daniel's parents appeal.

Having carefully reviewed the case, we agree with the district court's conclusions: the

IDEA does not prohibit the state's requirement that a parent or other qualified adult

remain in the home during a student's homebound instruction; because Daniel's parents

must be present and thus can administer his medication, the IDEA does not require the

instructor to administer it; and Daniel's parents cannot show he has been discriminated

against in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. The district court thoroughly addressed

the issues that Daniel's parents raise on appeal, and we have nothing to add to the

district court's analysis. We thus affirm without further discussion. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

PATRICIA ANN MAYNOR,

Plaintiff,

v. 3:11cv109-WS

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of 

Social Security, 

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation

docketed July 2, 2012. See Doc. 24. The magistrate judge recommends that the

Commissioner pay to the plaintiff $2,156.25 in attorney's fees and expenses

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). No objections to the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation have been filed. 

Upon review of the record, this court has determined that the

recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Case 3:11-cv-00109-WS-EMT Document 25 Filed 07/17/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 24) is adopted

and incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

2. The plaintiff’s motion (doc. 22) for attorney’s fees and costs is GRANTED.

3. The Commissioner shall pay the plaintiff, Patricia Ann Maynor, $2,156.25

as a reasonable attorney's fee and expenses under EAJA. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of July , 2012.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:11-cv-00109-WS-EMT Document 25 Filed 07/17/12 Page 2 of 2
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-493

_____________________________

VLADISLAV BUDNIK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Russell Healey, Judge.

January 30, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. 

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:11cr37-001/LAC

LEROY LYMONS

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Collier on August 31, 2020

Type of Motion/Pleading MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Filed by: Defendant on 8/31/2020 Doc. No. 451

Stipulated/Consented/Joint Pleading/Unopposed

Response: on Doc. No.

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS

CLERK OF COURT

/s/ Keri Igney 

Deputy Clerk

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 9

th

day of September,

2020 that:

(a) The requested relief is DENIED.

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cr-00037-LC Document 453 Filed 09/09/20 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

STEVE EMANUEL JONES,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00069-MP-GRJ

ALACHUA COUNTY JAIL,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 5, Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge, which recommends that plaintiff’s complaint, Doc. 1, be dismissed for failure to

prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. Plaintiff has not objected to the

recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed. Finding no plain error, it is accordingly

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Doc. 5, is ACCEPTED

and incorporated herein.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint, Doc. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of August, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-00069-MP-GRJ Document 9 Filed 08/23/11 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:11-cr-23-RS-GRJ

FRANK EBEN GULLET, JR.,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER

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

520). No objections have been filed.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is 

approved and incorporated in this Order.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate (Doc. 496) is DENIED without 

prejudice for failure to comply with an order of the court.. 

3. The clerk is directed to close the civil case.

ORDERED on May 30, 2012.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit
32.1





Certification


of


Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Poker Magic,
Inc. do hereby certify that, to the best of his knowledge:





(a) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of Poker Magic, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b) information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Poker Magic, Inc.





August
      14, 2009
              /s/ Douglas PolinskyDouglas
      PolinskyChief
      Executive OfficerAugust
      14, 2009
              /s/ Joseph A. Geraci, IIJoseph
      A. Geraci, IIChief
      Financial Officer
Understanding the Difference

! WARNING

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, 

consectetur adipiscing elit. Nullam 

scelerisque leo et eros convallis 

condimentum. Phasellus tincidunt, 

volutpat vitae.

Surgical Mask N95 Respirator

Testing and 

Approval

Cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA)

Evaluated, tested, and approved by 

NIOSH as per the requirements in 

42 CFR Part 84

Intended Use 

and Purpose

Fluid resistant and provides the wearer 

protection against large droplets, 

splashes, or sprays of bodily or other 

hazardous fluids. Protects the patient 

from the wearer’s respiratory emissions.

Reduces wearer’s exposure to particles 

including small particle aerosols and 

large droplets (only non-oil aerosols).

Face Seal Fit Loose-fitting Tight-fitting

Fit Testing 

Requirement

No Yes

User Seal Check 

Requirement

No Yes. Required each time the respirator 

is donned (put on)

Filtration Does NOT provide the wearer with a 

reliable level of protection from inhaling 

smaller airborne particles and is not 

considered respiratory protection

Filters out at least 95% of airborne 

particles including large and small 

particles

Leakage Leakage occurs around the edge of the 

mask when user inhales

When properly fitted and donned, 

minimal leakage occurs around edges 

of the respirator when user inhales

Use Limitations Disposable. Discard after each patient 

encounter.

Ideally should be discarded after each 

patient encounter and after aerosolgenerating procedures. It should 

also be discarded when it becomes 

damaged or deformed; no longer 

forms an effective seal to the face; 

becomes wet or visibly dirty; breathing 

becomes difficult; or if it becomes 

contaminated with blood, respiratory 

or nasal secretions, or other bodily 

fluids from patients.

This information provides clarification regarding respirator and mask use in workplaces in which employees are exposed 

to respiratory hazards, it is not specific for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health
* 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. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60037 Summary Calendar

MARLON ALPHANSO BROWN Petitioner

v. PETER D KEISLER, ACTING U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A35 899 844
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Marlon Alphanso Brown petitions this court for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that adopted and affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision that Brown was removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), (a)(2)(B)(i). Citing former 8 U.S.C. § 1432, Brown argues that he is a United States citizen based on his mother’s naturalization in 1984, when Brown was age seventeen. Brown argues that the BIA erred in determining that he did not meet the requirementsof§ 1432 because his parents United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 11, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-60037

2 were not legally separated at the timeofhis mother’s naturalization. Brown has shown noerror in connection with the BIA’s order. N ehmev. INS, 252 F.3d 415, 425-27 (5th Cir. 2001). The petition for review is DENIED.