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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

RAY CHRIS MOBLEY,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No: 5:11-cv-176-RH-GRJ

BAY COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants.

_______________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On October 31, 2011, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show cause on or

before November 10, 2011, as to why this case should not be dismissed because it is

duplicative of other cases pending in this Court that were docketed prior to the instant

case. See Doc. 5. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply would result in a

recommendation that this case be dismissed. As of this date, Plaintiff has neither

complied with the Court’s order nor shown cause as to why he is unable to do so.

 Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed as

duplicative, and for failure to comply with an order of the Court and for failure to

prosecute.

IN CHAMBERS this 17 day of November 2011. 

th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s objections within 14 days after being

served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of review of

proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case 5:11-cv-00176-RH-GRJ Document 6 Filed 11/17/11 Page 1 of 1
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CORNELL ROBERTS
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 3877

[ December 5, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; William W. Haury, Jr. , Judge; L.T. Case No. 16

- 003909CF10A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and J. Woodson Isom, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Picard, Assistan t Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

CONCESSION OF ERROR

P ER C URIAM

.

Appellant was charged with attempted first degree murder. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of the lesser included offense of attempted second degree murder. As the s tate concedes, the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the necessarily included offense of attempted manslaughter by act amounted to fundamental error because that offense is one step removed from the convicted offense of attempted second degree

murder. See Walton v. State , 208 So. 3d 60 , 64 (Fla. 2016); Coleman v.

State , 11 0 So. 3d 971, 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). Nothing in the record suggests that appellant expressly waived the instruction. Defense counsel

did not w ai ve the error by failing to request an instruction on attempted manslaughter by act. See Roberts v. State

, 242 So. 3d 296 ,299 (Fla. 2018).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial

.

G ERBER
, C.J., W ARNER and G ROSS

, JJ., concur.- 2

- * * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Petition for Permission to Appeal Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed November 17 , 2015.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00759

- CV

____________ DALE JOHNSON , Appellant

V. DENISE WALTERS, INDE PENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF INGA J.JOHNSON, DECE ASED , Appellee

On Appeal from the Probate Court No 2 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 409,860



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before this court is Dale Johnson’s Petition for Permissive Interlocutory Appeal of certain summary judgment orders

. To be entitled to a permissive appeal from an interlocutory order that would not otherwise be appealable, the requesting party must establish that (1) the order to be appealed involves “a controlling question of law as to which there is a2 substantial ground for difference of opinion” and (2) an immediate appeal from the order “may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(d); Tex. R. App. P. 28.3(e)(4); Tex. R. Civ. P.
168.
Based on parties’ filings and arguments in the trial court and this court , it appears that an interlocutory appeal of the summary judgment orders at issue may require this court to consider and decide more qu estions than just a single

“ controlling question of law.” Given the limited nature of interlocutory appeals and the requirement we construe statutes authorizing such appeals strictly, we conclude
Dale Johnson has not satisfied the statutory requ irements of section 51.014(d). See Gulf Coast Asphalt Co., L.L.C. v. Lloyd , 457 S.W.3d 539, 545 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th] 2015, no pet.). Accordingly, we deny th e petition for permission to appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost
, and Justices Christopher and Donovan

.
Exhibit 10.11


 


Summary Translation of Agreement with
Tahe Xingzhongda Carbon Co.


 


Buyer:  Zhejiang Tantech Bamboo
Technology Co., Ltd


 


Supplier: Tahe Xingzhongda Carbon Co.


 


1. Products: charcoal products, charcoal powder,
bamboo charcoal granules.


 


2. Shipping costs: borne by Tahe Xingzhongda
Carbon Co. (“Supplier”)


 


3. Payment method: within 6 month upon receiving
the supplies, in the form of bank check, wire or bank acceptance note.


 


4. Other matters: the Supplier will be subject
to a liquidated damage provision when the products are not supplied on time in the amount of between 1000-10000 yuan; substandard
products sent to Zhejiang Tantech Bamboo Technology Co., Ltd will be cleared and repaid by the Supplier within a month.


 


5. Term
date of this contract: 2012-01-01 till 2012-12-31
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CARL MORGAN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:10cv227/MCR/EMT

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated October 21, 2010 (Doc. 19). 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 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 action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as malicious, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 2010.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JACQUELINE FINN, as Personal

Representative of the Estate of 

James Peter Rush,

Plaintiff, 

vs. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-152/RS-EMT

BOBBY HADDOCK, Individually and as

Sheriff of Washington County, Florida;

JONATHAN RACKARD, and FRANK

STONE,

Defendants. 

_________________________________________ /

UORDER

My previous Order (Doc. 20) is vacated.

IT IS ORDERED that the pretrial conference is rescheduled for July 8, 2011, at 

8:30 a.m. 

ORDERED on April 14, 2011.

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ERIC LEE ERICKSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:11cv47-RH/WCS

PAMELA JO BONDI,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, ECF No. 4, and the objections, ECF No. 6. I have reviewed de

novo the issues raised by the objections. 

The plaintiff is a defendant in an ongoing state-court prosecution. He has

sued the state attorney general under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting that it is

unconstitutional for a state not to provide an attorney to an indigent defendant

during the defendant’s initial court appearance. 

As the report and recommendation correctly concludes, in Florida the

attorney general does not prosecute cases like the one that is pending against the
Page 2 of 3

plaintiff. Instead, a state attorney—a different constitutional officer—prosecutes

cases of that kind. Even if the plaintiff could properly bring a federal § 1983 claim

against someone, it would not be the attorney general. The plaintiff’s complaint

thus must be dismissed.

And the case could not go forward anyway. A federal court ordinarily must

abstain when the defendant in a state criminal case brings a § 1983 case in federal

court asserting that the state court is violating the criminal-case defendant’s

constitutional rights as part of the ongoing state criminal proceeding. See Younger

v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971). Thus instead of

seeking immediate relief in federal court, a state criminal-case defendant must raise

any constitutional claims in state court as part of the defense of the state

prosecution. If convicted—and after exhausting state remedies—a state criminalcase defendant may file a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus raising the

constitutional claims.

The plaintiff’s attempt to assert his constitutional claims in this § 1983 case

while the state prosecution is ongoing is squarely at odds with Younger. 

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED. The clerk must enter 

Case No: 4:11cv47-RH/WCS
Page 3 of 3

judgment stating, “The complaint is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).” 

The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on March 8, 2011.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge

Case No: 4:11cv47-RH/WCS
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5323 

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act to establish an exemption from the credit valuation adjustment 

calculation for uncleared derivatives transactions with end-users so that 

United States companies are not disadvantaged, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 19, 2018 

Mr. DAVIDSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to establish an exemption from 

the credit valuation adjustment calculation for uncleared 

derivatives transactions with end-users so that United 

States companies are not disadvantaged, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Derivatives Fairness 

5 Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5323 IH

1 SEC. 2. CREDIT VALUATION ADJUSTMENT RELIEF. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Re3 form and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5361 et 

4 seq.), is amended by inserting after section 176 the fol5 lowing new section: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 177. CREDIT VALUATION ADJUSTMENT. 

7 ‘‘Prudential risk-based capital requirements and gen8 erally applicable risk-based capital requirements estab9 lished by the appropriate Federal banking agencies shall 

10 not apply a fair value adjustment to reflect counterparty 

11 credit risk in valuation of over-the-counter derivative con12 tracts with respect to transactions with a counterparty 

13 that— 

14 ‘‘(1) is described under section 2(h)(7)(A) of 

15 the Commodity Exchange Act; 

16 ‘‘(2) is a person or class of persons that meets 

17 any qualifications required by a regulation issued by 

18 the Commodity Futures Trading Commission with 

19 respect to such person or class of persons qualifying 

20 for an exemption under section 4(c)(1) of the Com21 modity Exchange Act from the requirements of sec22 tion 2(h)(1)(A) of such Act; or 

23 ‘‘(3) is an affiliate that meets the requirements 

24 for an exception under section 2(h)(7)(D) of the 

25 Commodity Exchange Act.’’. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5323 IH

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of con2 tents in section 1(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Re3 form and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5301 note) 

4 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 

5 176 the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 177. Credit valuation adjustment.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32(b)

TXU CORP.

Certificate Pursuant to Section 906

of Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002

CERTIFICATION OF CFO

The undersigned, Kirk R. Oliver, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of TXU Corp.
(the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 1st day of March, 2006.



/s/ Kirk R. OliverName:

Kirk R. OliverTitle:

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TXU Corp. and
will be retained by TXU Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2010275EN.01000101.xml

| 12.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 275/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 275/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5903 — Tech Data Europe/Brightstar Europe/Triade Holding)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 275/01

On 22 September 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 32010M5903. 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 32010M5903. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

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

In connection withthe Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report onForm 10-KSB of BPZ Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year endedDecember 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I Manuel Pablo Zúñiga-Pflücker, as Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and solely forthe purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledgeand belief, that:

(1)            TheReport fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)            Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| */s/ Manuel Pablo Zúñiga-Pflücker* |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Manuel Pablo Zúñiga-Pflücker       |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer             |   |
|                                              |   |
| October 16, 2006                                  |   |
|                                                   |        |  |

 

----
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

THOMAS K. ROGERS,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv463/LAC/EMT

KENNETH S. TUCKER,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated December 1, 2011 (doc. 40). 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). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, 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 without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to complywith 

an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3 day of January, 2012. rd

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00463-LC-EMT Document 42 Filed 01/03/12 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PANAMA CITY DIVISION 

HANCOCK BANK, a Mississippi 

banking corporation, 

Plaintiff/ Counter-defendant 

vs. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-94/RS-CJK

BOYD BROTHERS, INC., a Florida 

corporation, et al., 

Defendants/ Counterclaimants 

_________________________________________/ 

ORDER

Before me is Plaintiff’s Response to Show Cause Order (Doc. 35). 

 From the pleadings, it appears that common questions of law or fact are involved 

in these five suits filed in this Court: 

Hancock Bank v. Boyd Brothers et al., 5:11-cv-94-RS-CJK 

Hancock Bank v. Boyd Brothers et al., 5:11-cv-95-RS-GRJ 

Hancock Bank v. Boyd Brothers et al., 5:11-cv-96-RS-CJK 

Hancock Bank v. Boyd Brothers et al., 5:11-cv-97-RS-EMT 

Hancock Bank v. Boyd Brothers et al., 5:11-cv-98-RS-CJK 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 (a) (2), the five cases shall be consolidated. 

Case 5:11-cv-00097-RS-EMT Document 31 Filed 06/14/11 Page 1 of 2
IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Clerk shall consolidate the cases. 

2. The Clerk shall file a copy of this Order in each of these cases. 

3. All future pleadings should be filed only in case 5:11-cv-94-RS-CJK. 

ORDERED on June 14, 2011. 

/S/ Richard Smoak

RICHARD SMOAK 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:11-cv-00097-RS-EMT Document 31 Filed 06/14/11 Page 2 of 2
<Page>

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated July 26, 2001, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements of Isonics Corporation and Subsidiaries included in the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended April 30, 2001. We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Company's
Registration Statements on Forms S-3, S-4 and S-8 (File Nos. 333-52514,
333-74339, 333-46542, and 333-37696).

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

San Jose, California
July 26, 2001
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

HOIST FITNESS SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TUFFSTUFF FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________ 

2021-1978

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in No. 5:17-cv-01388-AB-KK, 

Judge Andre Birotte, Jr.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

LARA SUE GARNER, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani 

LLP, San Diego, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also 

represented by SEAN DONOVAN FLAHERTY, MATTHEW G.

KLEINER, SUSAN B. MEYER. 

 RUDOLPH A. TELSCHER, JR., Husch Blackwell LLP, St. 

Louis, MO, argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by KARA RENEE FUSSNER, DAISY MANNING. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 21-1978 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 04/05/2022
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (CHEN, SCHALL, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

April 5, 2022

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 21-1978 Document: 42 Page: 2 Filed: 04/05/2022
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-50774 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. MARTIMIANO CAYETANO-GASPAR, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:09-CR-1357-1
Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Martimiano Cayetano-Gaspar appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time in which to file an appellate brief. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D March 1, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-50774 Document: 00511773450 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2012No. 10-50774

Cayetano-Gaspar has completed his sente n c e , has been released from custo dy , a nd has been removed to Mexico. The appeal of his sentence is therefore moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis , 483 F.3d 381, 383 (5th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Government’s motions for summary affirmance and for an extension of time are DENIED as moot.

2 Case: 10-50774 Document: 00511773450 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2012