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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

BEN JERMAINE HUGHES, III,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:11cv8/WS/EMT

J.B. BURCH, 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). By order of this court dated

August 19, 2011, Plaintiff was given thirty (30) days in which to file a second amended complaint

(doc. 24). Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline; therefore, on September 28,

2011, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause, within twenty-one (21) days, why

this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court (doc. 26). The

time for compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed, and Plaintiff has failed to file a

second amended complaint, although over sixty days have elapsed since Plaintiff was first directed

to file his second amended complaint.

 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 25th day of October 2011.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-00008-WS-EMT Document 27 Filed 10/25/11 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 (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: 3:11cv8/WS/EMT

Case 3:11-cv-00008-WS-EMT Document 27 Filed 10/25/11 Page 2 of 2
1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-50543

Summary Calendar

 

IDELFONSO GALINDO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-99-CV-213-F

--------------------

January 26, 2001

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Idelfonso Galindo appeals the district court’s partial

affirmance of the Commissioner’s determination that he was

ineligible to receive social security benefits because he was not

a resident of the United States, as is required under 42 U.S.C. §

1382c(a)(1)(B)(i). An individual seeking benefits bears the burden

of proving that he is qualified to receive such benefits. 20

C.F.R. §§ 416.200, 416.1603(a). Galindo has failed to demonstrate

that the administrative law judge erred in the legal standards used

to determine whether Galindo was a United States resident from 1994
2

to 1997. Galindo has also failed to show a lack of substantial

evidence supporting the finding that he was not a resident during

this period. The district court did not err in affirming the

Commissioner’s determination that Galindo was not eligible to

receive benefits from March 1994 to September 1997.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>


                                                                Exhibit 23(a)

                         CONSENT OF COUNSEL TO TXU CORP.

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of the statements
made as to matters of law and legal conclusions contained in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K of TXU Corp. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, under
Part I, Items 1 and 2--Business and Properties--Operating Segments -- North
America Energy Segment -- Regulation and Rates, North America Energy Delivery
Segment -- Regulation and Rates - Electric Delivery, Regulation and Rates -- Gas
Delivery and Environmental Matters-- US, in TXU Corp.'s Registration Statement
on Form S-3 (No. 333-37652).



/s/  Hunton & Williams



March 11, 2003
Dallas, Texas
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

WILLIAM CORCORAN and

VINCENT RIVERA,

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO.: 5:10cv297/SPM/MD

WALTER MCNEIL, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. This case was

transferred to this court on November 8, 2010. Because it was unclear who the intended

plaintiffs were in this case, the court entered an order on November 23, 2010 directing the

plaintiff or plaintiffs to file a single unified amended complaint and either individual motions

to proceed in forma pauperis or the $350.00 filing fee. On December 6, 2010, plaintiff

Vincent Rivera filed a notice of voluntary dismissal which was denied without prejudice

because it was not clear whether he sought to have the entire case dismissed or only to

be dismissed as a plaintiff in this action. Neither Rivera nor Corcoran filed anything 1

further, and on January 11, 2011, the court entered an order directing the plaintiffs to show

The court may take judicial notice of its own records which reflect the fact that Vincent Rivera is a

1

“three striker” who is no longer entitle to proceed in forma pauperis in this court.
Page 2 of 2

cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or to comply with an

order of the court. Plaintiffs have not responded. 

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be dismissed without prejudice for plaintiffs failure to comply with an

order of the court and failure to prosecute this action.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 26 day of January, 2011. th

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

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 hereof. 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 any objections shall be served upon any 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: 3:10cv231/LAC/MD
# CA2010144EN.01000101.xml

| 3.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 144/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 144/1

---

RESERVE LIST (1)

1

OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AST/74/08

ASSISTANTS (AST 3)

IN THE FIELD OF SECURITY

(2010/C 144 A/01)

Merit group 1

| ARROYO | Roberto |
| --- | --- |
| DRKOSCH | Katrin Beate Valerie |
| FOERSTER | Markus |
| FRANSSEN | Frederic |
| GRANGE | Jean-Francois |
| LOGGHE | Frank |
| MARIN | Constantin |
| RINALDI | Valentina |
| SZYMCZAK | Slawomir |

ARROYO

Roberto

DRKOSCH

Katrin Beate Valerie

FOERSTER

Markus

FRANSSEN

Frederic

GRANGE

Jean-Francois

LOGGHE

Frank

MARIN

Constantin

RINALDI

Valentina

SZYMCZAK

Slawomir

Merit group 2

| BEGUE | Christian |
| --- | --- |
| BILIC | Danko |
| BILIC | Neno |
| CORREIA MANUEL | Manuel |
| DE JONGHE | Bert |
| GUILLAMON | Yannick |
| JANSSENS | Michiel |
| PLUMAT | Olivier |
| POELS | Axel |
| RENTMEESTERS | Pascal |
| ROMANO | Massimiliano |
| VOLSZKY | Andras |

BEGUE

Christian

BILIC

Danko

BILIC

Neno

CORREIA MANUEL

Manuel

DE JONGHE

Bert

GUILLAMON

Yannick

JANSSENS

Michiel

PLUMAT

Olivier

POELS

Axel

RENTMEESTERS

Pascal

ROMANO

Massimiliano

VOLSZKY

Andras

Merit group 3

| BROCCART | Anthony |
| --- | --- |
| DE LOOSE | Peter |
| GOOVAERTS | Ronald |
| LECLOUX | Thierry |
| LEROY | Jean-Dominique |
| MIHAYLOVA-SPASSOVA | Doroteia |
| NEUKERMANS | Willem |
| OTTENBURGS | Peter |

BROCCART

Anthony

DE LOOSE

Peter

GOOVAERTS

Ronald

LECLOUX

Thierry

LEROY

Jean-Dominique

MIHAYLOVA-SPASSOVA

Doroteia

NEUKERMANS

Willem

OTTENBURGS

Peter

The reserve list will be valid until 31 December 2011 and may be extended.

31 December 2011

---

(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly request her/his name not be published.

1

---
**J-~** •



# . _ -- L e_

## J:toJtg.~--~l**N_vg_ILC.tl>_LttccluY.I--,-{iCI.m-e.u~vi~er"----­**

...----· , 1xLtb_Y:.\1:tClci

### an.,_-ctv~~-s~e.__h,o.lid_R.e.--\:o_\'J~Q-cl.o-,-f-f-€.S.:e.l~~o_€..Q. 

### __

----

### un~~~-ro**r-knit.s_rlv_m&YIJ.S_d_e__CcwS4-ctQ.YL~_Bf__s_eu~~-.--**

·-------·--



### ___**I~.!?.Ji~--~-0_6~ c~-l**  

### L\**~-~'-...:-C.~-A:~~eo...\~J!o** 

### ...**_l3-=.l~:O..o_s-~ ~-**  c{?.

__

_ ,_ _ __.I**R.~N.d_~CJ_G:-C&- ~9-1~-**  

## c**Arr-~\_:tla_. r~-** **~ ~-**  

### 0 0**5\.\'~-** LR



### ____**:tgil__o_tb":f:~t_Cavv}:_** 

## 13**{~ 1_l~h-t:c!**  

### of- T:e**~o.-.r ~--** **------------------~~----------------------**



### ________ £o_V'O_t_cl-e___2n Vi

### C\.~me 

## .-k**do._Ln.~mY-uJJ1L,-ttJ1ftYf't1** 

### r o**~--M ~va** **Q._e.s±ct_}_t_~_;_LcJJ~t** 

### ._ _____ _



# _**......._._.·---~-----·**



### ___....__ __

### ~_,__. S... tf\ 

### r.. !±CJJ

### sk_,_ro_e._?_v~ede_cl:ect~dt!._R_u..w\11**P~v:e___m_e_n£.g** u.tQY-1

__ _

_ ... ____**m_r_·JiP-lt~LQ_cl._d_~-- ii_.,__f>_t_w-rd-_o_l_\tub£.G.-s_CeLt:p:!&,-~XL.lLY-LCl.---** **-.d.-..~~----{;l_rd_e_\t** ___**~S..C.rl·kt_t. -e.n_flhi_nu-~w_cl:e~_&!{_,_J1=_tL::SJl3_:2_:-_CJ~.--** **~E.: t'3-\~-DOlf2>B.-cR._Le._Aqrrccksce_c..u1L~~tclt\tru~~Y-~--** 

# -~
#### STATE v. GOSNELL

No. 277 PC.

Case below: 52 N.C. App. 586.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 17 August 1981.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

vs. Case No. 3:10cr43/MCR

JOHNNY BROWN

_____________________________________________________________________

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The Defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. R. Crim. P.,

and has entered a plea of guilty to Counts I and II of the Indictment. After cautioning and examining

the Defendant under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that

the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and that the offenses charged are supported by an

independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offenses. I therefore

recommend that the plea of guilty be accepted and that the Defendant be adjudicated guilty and have

sentence imposed accordingly.

Dated: April 29, 2010 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 2 of 2

NOTICE

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

twenty four (24) hours after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may

appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not control. A

copy of objections shall be served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope

of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d

698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988).

Case No. 3:10cr43/MCR
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Election Assistance Commission

# AGENCY:

United States Election Assistance Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting for EAC Board of Advisors. 

# Date and Time:

Wednesday, December 12, 2007, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. and Thursday, December 13, 2007, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. and Friday, December 14, 2007, 8:30 a.m.-12 p.m.

# Place:

Omni Hotel Downtown, 700 San Jacinto Boulevard at 8th Street, Austin, TX 78701, Phone number (512) 476-3700.

# Purpose:

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Board of Advisors, as required by the Help America Vote Act of 2002, will meet to consider and receive presentations on the proposed next iteration of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG), as were submitted to EAC from the commission's Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC). The Board of Advisors will formulate recommendations to EAC regarding the guidelines and consider other administrative matters. The EAC Standards Board will meet at the same time and some of the Board of Advisors sessions will be held jointly with the Standards Board.

This meeting will be open to the public.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (202) 566-3100.

Thomas R. Wilkey, 

Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

[FR Doc. 07-5636 Filed 11-7-07; 4:24 pm]

BILLING CODE 6820-KF-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                                        


GK Intelligent Systems, Inc.
Houston, Texas


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of our report dated March 5, 1999, relating to the
financial statements of GK Intelligent Systems, Inc. appearing in the Company's
Transition Report on Form 10-KSB for the seven months ended December 31, 1998.
Our report contains an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company's ability to
continue as a going concern.

We also consent to the reference to us under the caption "Experts" in the
Registration Statement.



Houston, Texas
March 31, 1999
# C_2011037EN.01000502.xml

| 5.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6100 — Gilde/Parcom/Gamma)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 37/03

On 28 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 32011M6100. 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 32011M6100. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

VINCENT MCDANIELS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:11cv171-MP-GRJ

DEBRA LIVINGSTON, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated November 30, 2011. (Doc. 6). The parties have been furnished

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de

novo determination of any timely filed objections. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

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

incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. This case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

3. Plaintiff’s request for service (doc. 5) is DENIED as moot.

DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of January, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:11-cv-00171-MP-GRJ Document 8 Filed 01/05/12 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 3 (Friday, January 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-6271]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, U.S.-India Bilateral Collaborative 
Research Partnerships (CRP) on the Prevention of HIV/AIDS (R21).
    Date: January 24, 2008.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B 
Rockledge Drive, Room 3133, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Sujata Vijh, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, NIAID/
NIH/DHHS, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 
301-594-0985, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ed9b8487859ead83848c8489c3838485c38a829b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="097f6063617a49676068606d27676061276e667f">[email protected]</span></a>.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 26, 2007.
Anna Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-6271 Filed 1-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
The Hono rable Joseph E. Stevens, Jr., United States District Judge for th e 1 Western District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 96-1905

_____________ Roy G. Watson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Jesse Brown, Secretary of the * Department of Veteran Affairs, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: August 4, 1997 Filed: August 18, 1997

_____________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Roy G . Watson appeals the judgment of the District Court in favor o f 1 defenda nts after a bench trial. Having reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the judgment of the District Court is correct. None of the court's factual findings is reversible under the cle ar error standard, which governs our review of facts found by the trial court. Watson's argument concerning the effect of his FECA claim lacks merit. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.1


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


Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of GK Intelligent Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

..    The Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Form
     10-KSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
     13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

..    the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     the Company.




Date: November 16, 2005



/s/  Gary F. Kimmons
----------------------
Gary F. Kimmons
Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer, and
Director