alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 11358 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

RAFAL ARCHULETA, JR.

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:15

- CR

- 40

- 1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Rafal Archuleta, Jr., has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Archuleta h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 2, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-11358 Document: 00513975896 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2017No. 16

- 11358

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-11358 Document: 00513975896 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2017
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN ADMIRALTY

COASTAL BANK AND TRUST OF FLORIDA,

successor by merger with VANGUARD

BANK AND TRUST COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:09cv351/MCR/MD

M/V GLORY, its engines, tackle,

apparel, etc., in rem, and JOE M. TAYLOR,

in personam

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER APPOINTING

SUBSTITUTE CUSTODIAN

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for

the Appointment of Substitute Custodian (DE #5). The Court, having considered

Plaintiff’s motion, the affidavit in support, the record herein, and being otherwise

advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The Court finds that(a)Captain’s Choice Boats, Inc., is duly qualified

to serve as the Substitute Custodian of the M/V GLORY, her engines, tackle,

apparel and appurtenances, etc. (“Vessel”); (b) Captain’s Choice Boats, Inc., has

agreed to assume the responsibility of safekeeping the Vessel; and (c) Captain’s

Choice Boats, Inc. has agreed to act as Substitute Custodian until further order of

the Court.

2. The United States Marshal for the Northern District of Florida is

authorized and directed to surrender the possession of M/V GLORY to the

Substitute Custodian named herein, Captain’s Choice Boats, Inc., and that upon

such surrender, the Marshal shall be discharged from the duties and responsibilities
Page 2 of 2

for the safekeeping of said Vessel and held harmless by any party for any and all

claims arising whatsoever out of said substitute possession and safekeeping.

3. Captain’s Choice Boats, Inc. is appointed the Substitute Custodian

of the Defendant Vessel and shall retain the Defendant Vessel in custody for

possession and safekeeping until further order of this Court. All Marshal’s costs, if

any, shall be paid prior to the release of said property and the Substitute Custodian’s

receipt for the property from the Marshal shall attest to the date and time of release

on a certified copy thereof.

ORDERED this 28th day of August, 2009.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to Counsel of Record and Substitute Custodian

Captain’s Choice Boats, Inc.

Mitchell D. Kaplan, President

67 Eglin Street

Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547

choiceboats@aol.com
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5367 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5367

To amend Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to protect the 
``gig economy'' and small businesses that operate in large part through 
contractor services from the threat of costly class action litigation, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 21, 2018

  Mr. Biggs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to protect the 
``gig economy'' and small businesses that operate in large part through 
contractor services from the threat of costly class action litigation, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protect the Gig Economy Act of 
2018''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTING THE GIG ECONOMY FROM CLASS ACTIONS.

    Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
            ``(5) the claim does not allege the misclassification of 
        employees as independent contractors.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs CASE NO: 3:01CR78-003

EVION WITHERSPOON,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

ORDER REDUCING SENTENCE

Before the Court is the Government's Rule 35 motions advising that a reduction in

defendant's sentence may be warranted by her continued cooperation and substantial

assistance since her sentencing. Although defendant was originally sentenced as permitted

by Rule 5K1 to a period below the guideline range and the minimum mandatory sentence,

the Court finds that a further reduction is proper to reward her continued and significant

assistance to the Government in the prosecution of others.

Defendant's sentence of confinement is, therefore, reduced from 198 months to 120

months on Count I and from 180 months to 120 months on Counts III and V, each count to

run concurrent, one with the other. Any further reduction would trivialize the role this

defendant played in the drug conspiracy for which she was convicted. In addition, her record

of prior drug convictions stands in the way of further reduction. 

In all other respects, the original sentence imposed by this Court's order of 20

December 2001 shall remain unchanged.

ORDERED this 17th day of July 2006.

 s/L.A. Collier 

 LACEY A. COLLIER

 Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:01-cr-00078-LC Document 176 Filed 07/17/06 Page 1 of 1
# C_2011144EN.01000601.xml

| 14.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/6

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case COMP/M.6106 — Caterpillar/MWM)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 144/03

On 5 May 2011, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the abovementioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301 / 22967244) or by post, under reference COMP/M.6106 — Caterpillar/MWM, to the following address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

PROPHET PAULCIN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:11cv267/RV/EMT

WALTER A. McNEIL, 

Defendant.

____________________________/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated October 28, 2011 (doc. 11). 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 all timely

filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 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. Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal (doc. 10) is GRANTED and this case is

DISMISSED without prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of December, 2011.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-00267-RV-EMT Document 12 Filed 12/13/11 Page 1 of 1
# C_2010355EN.01002402.xml

| 29.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/24

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6040 — Europcar/Daimler/car2go Hamburg JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 355/05

On 17 December 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 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 32010M6040. 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 32010M6040. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT )

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:

v. ) 3:10-cv-00379-MCR-EMT

)

)

TITAN WASTE SERVICES, INC. ) 

)

Defendant. )

JUDGMENT

Judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission, and against Defendant Titan Waste Services, Inc. in the amount of 

$228,603.75 for the benefit of Michael Brooks, with costs taxed against Defendant. 

DONE AND ORDERED this the _________ day of _______, 2013. 

______________________________

Case 3:10-cv-00379-MCR-EMT Document 73-2 Filed 07/03/13 Page 1 of 1
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.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Permissive joinder allows multiple defendants to be joined in one action if the 

right to relief arises “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or 

occurrences” and “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the 

action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). 

Here, it is clear that common questions of law predominate. Plaintiff represents 

that common questions of fact will also be at issue with only “time and place” 

differences. However, these “time and place” differences make inappropriate the joinder 

of parties who reside throughout the state’s three districts. Permissive joinder is a 

doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right. Its justification lies in considerations of 

judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants. Alexander v. Fulton County, 207

F.3d 1303, 1323 (11th Cir. 2000) (Citing United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 

726 (1966). Quite simply, it is unfair to require defendants who reside in the Southern 

District and the Middle District to be hailed to court in the Northern District. I intend to 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 65 Filed 08/29/11 Page 1 of 2
sever those defendants who reside in a different district and/or those defendants where 

Plaintiff has alleged that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred 

in a different district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

Plaintiff shall file a particularized report, for the defendants named in consolidated 

case 1:10-cv-207, which (1) identifies the district in which each defendant resides and 

(2) identifies the district(s) where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim 

occurred for each of the Defendants – i.e., the location(s) where the defendants have 

allegedly used the trademark infringing products. This report shall be filed not later than 

September 6, 2011. 

ORDERED on August 29, 2011.

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 65 Filed 08/29/11 Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

April 26, 2018

d0419 

# Order

Clerk April 26, 2018

155582

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 155582

COA: 336132

Kent CC: 01

- 008625

- FC

RAMON LEE BRYANT,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 17, 2017

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the d efendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129005 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: 129005 

 COA: 254907 

Wayne CC: 03-012592-01 

TERRANCE MARTEZ WILLIAMS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 14, 2005 

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

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

t1024 

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. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk
# C_2010288EN.01000101.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/1

---

(2010/C 288/01)

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 274, 9.10.2010

Past publications

OJ C 260, 25.9.2010

OJ C 246, 11.9.2010

OJ C 234, 28.8.2010

OJ C 221, 14.8.2010

OJ C 209, 31.7.2010

OJ C 195, 17.7.2010

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
Exhibit 31.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Frederick Pucillo, Jr., certify that:  1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sungro Minerals, Inc.;  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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have [Language omitted in accordance with SEC Release Nos. 34-47986 and 34-54942]: 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 registrant, 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) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SEC Release Nos. 34-47986 and 34-54942]; c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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 evaluation; and d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrant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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: April 19, 2012 /s/    Frederick Pucillo, Jr.Frederick Pucillo, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer, President
and Director
EX-10.3






MDA/Loral Dispute Resolution




(1) Each party agrees to advance one-half of a $100 million settlement payment ($50 million by each
of MDA and Loral).



(2) The parties shall submit the dispute over the final division of the $100 million to [redacted]
to attempt to mediate and then, if necessary, to arbitrate the dispute.



(3) The arbitrator will first decide the value to SS/L (out of the $100 million) of the covenant
not to sue for infringement of the nine patents asserted in Case 1 and Case 2, which portion shall
be borne by MDA.



(4) The balance of the $100 million will be allocated equally between Case 1 and Case 2, and the
Case 1 portion shall be borne by Loral.



(5) With respect to the Case 2 portion, the arbitrator will decide what (if any) portion shall be
borne by Loral.



(6) The parties are free to retain [redacted] and [redacted] if they so choose.



(7) The minimum payment either party will make is 15m.



/s/ Michael Targoff



/s/ Daniel Friedmann



August 14, 2014
Exhibit 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Gary F. Kimmons, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report of M Power Entertainment Inc.;

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
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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 registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

/s/  Gary F. Kimmons

Gary F. Kimmons
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer


DATED this 4th day of May, 2006.