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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. 3:11cr32/MCR

THOMAS JOHN BACH, II

 /

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

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

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

guiltyof the defendant, THOMAS JOHN BACH, II, to the one count indictment against

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

as directed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of June, 2011.

 s/M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cr-00032-MCR Document 23 Filed 06/07/11 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32(a)



TXU CORP.

Certificate Pursuant to Section 906

of Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002

CERTIFICATION OF CEO



The undersigned, C. John Wilder, Chairman, President and CEO of TXU Corp.
(the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | 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 10th day of June, 2005.



| |  |  |  |  |  |        |  |                            
| |  |  |  |  |  | ------ |  | ---------------------------
| |  |  |  | 
| |  |  |  | 
| |  |  |  |  |  |        |  | /s/ C. John Wilder         
| |  |  |  |  |  | Name:  |  | C. John Wilder             
| |  |  |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chairman, President and CEO



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.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 248 (Friday, December 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 73777]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-6247]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, January 25, 2008.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance Matters.

Contact Person For More Information: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

David A. Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 07-6247 Filed 12-26-07; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
N95 de cara 

completa (FFR)

Cumple con OSHA 1910.134 (estándar sobre protección X respiratoria)

N95 quirúrgico 

de cara completa 

(FFR)

X 

Purificador de aire 

forzado con máscara de 

ajuste holgado (PAPR)

X 

Elastomérico

X 

Requiere evaluación del riesgo X X X X 

Requiere capacitación en el uso correcto X X X X 

Requiere prueba de ajuste X X X 

Se puede usar con campos estériles X ?

† 

Se puede usar en procedimientos de alto riesgo que 

generen aerosoles (podrían requerirse EPP adicionales) X X X 

Se puede usar con vello facial (que entre en contacto con la 

superficie de sellado) X 

Diseñado para volver a usarse (se puede limpiar y 

mantener)

Se puede usar para medidas de precaución de transmisión X aérea X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

CONSIDERACIONES PARA LA SELECCIÓN DEL 

RESPIRADOR EN ENTORNOS DE ATENCIÓN MÉDICA*

*

Estas consideraciones se deben entender en términos de uso general. Manténgase informado a medida que se actualicen las directrices de salud pública

†No hay evidencia suficiente para respaldar su uso seguro.

Fuente: OSHA/NIOSH Hospital Respiratory Protection Program Toolkit

Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health
#### STATE v. HAMPTON LEE BRITT.

(Filed 15 January, 1965.)

Criminal Law § 111—

An instruction of tlie court to scrutinize the testimony of defendant and the testimony of defendant’s brother-in-law because of their interest, but that if, after such scrutiny, the jury should find that they had told the truth, to give their testimony the same weight as that of a disinterested witness, *held*without error.

Appeal by defendant from *Carr, J.,*May 1964 Session of Robeson.

Criminal action in which defendant is charged with an assault with a deadly weapon upon one Frances Chavis, a female. From a conviction and judgment in Recorder’s Court, defendant appealed to Superior Court where a trial *de novo*was had.

Plea: Not guilty. Verdict: Guilty.

Judgment: Active prison sentence of 2 years.

*Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Sanders for the State.*

*Barrington ■& Britt for defendant.*

PeR CuRiam.

Defendant claimed self-defense and testified in his own behalf. His brother-in-law gave testimony tending to support the plea of self-defense.

Defendant excepts to the following excerpt from the charge: “It is your duty to scrutinize their (defendant’s and his brother-in-law’s) testimony because of their interest in your verdict. If, after doing so, you find that they have told the truth, it will be your duty to give their testimony the same weight as that of a dis-interested witness.”

The instruction is not prejudicial. *State v. Faust,*254 N.C. 101, 113, 118 S.E. 2d 769; *State v. Barnhill,*186 N.C. 446, 119 S.E. 894. *State v. Turner,*253 N.C. 37, 116 S.E. 2d 194, is factually distinguishable.

No error.
EXHIBIT 32



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 Quarterly  Report of Matches, Inc.   (the "Company") on Form  10-Q for the  period  ending  September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof  (the "Report"),  I, Zhao Zhimeng, Chief Financial  Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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.





June 28, 2011

/s/ Zhao Zhimeng

Zhao Zhimeng

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)



|Date
|----
|    





0
Order filed March 10, 2020 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00676-CV

____________

PETRA MUELLER, Appellant

V.

NORBERT MUELLER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 250th District Court

Travis County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-16-003688

ORDER

This is an appeal from a judgment signed June 26, 2018. Appellant filed a 

notice of appeal on July 23, 2018. The notice of appeal is defective. 

An incorrect cause number on the notice of appeal does not defeat the 

jurisdiction of the court of appeals if the instrument is a “bona fide attempt” to 

invoke appellate court jurisdiction. San Antonio v. Rodriguez, 828 S.W.2d 417, 418 

(Tex. 1992). An appellant should be given an opportunity to amend a defective 

Formatted: Different first page header
2

perfecting instrument before the court of appeals may dismiss an appeal. Grand 

Prairie I.S.D. v. Southern Parts Imports, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 499, 500 (Tex. 1991).

Appellant is ordered to file an amended notice of appeal reflecting the 

correct trial court cause number. 

The amended notice of appeal shall be filed on or before March 20, 2020. If 

appellant does not comply with this order, the court will consider dismissal of the 

appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Hassan.
# C_2011185EN.01000201.xml

| 25.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 185/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

24 June 2011

2011/C 185/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4220 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 114,06 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4587 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88855 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1802 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1902 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,7825 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,378 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 269,50 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7093 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9919 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2240 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3207 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3473 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3961 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,0767 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7482 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7597 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 534,15 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,7683 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,2059 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3740 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 232,84 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3300 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,765 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,1300 |
| THB | Thai baht | 43,627 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2707 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,8867 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 63,9830 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4220

JPY

Japanese yen

114,06

DKK

Danish krone

7,4587

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88855

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1802

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1902

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,7825

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,378

HUF

Hungarian forint

269,50

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7093

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9919

RON

Romanian leu

4,2240

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3207

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3473

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3961

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,0767

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7482

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7597

KRW

South Korean won

1 534,15

ZAR

South African rand

9,7683

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,2059

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3740

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 232,84

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3300

PHP

Philippine peso

61,765

RUB

Russian rouble

40,1300

THB

Thai baht

43,627

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2707

MXN

Mexican peso

16,8867

INR

Indian rupee

63,9830

---

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

1

Source

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 29, 2023. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, November 29, 2023 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A24D0140. PURE PEACH ORGANIC, INC. v. FFD HOLDINGS GA, INC. et al.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2023CV382971
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5215 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5215

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to prohibit employees found to have knowingly misused 
Department of Veterans Affairs purchase cards from serving as purchase 
                  card holders or approving officials.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 8, 2018

  Mr. Bergman (for himself, Miss Rice of New York, Mr. Bost, and Mr. 
    Dunn) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to prohibit employees found to have knowingly misused 
Department of Veterans Affairs purchase cards from serving as purchase 
                  card holders or approving officials.

    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 ``Veterans Affairs Purchase Card 
Misuse Mitigation Act''.

SEC. 2. MISUSE OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS PURCHASE CARDS BY 
              DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 727. Misuse of Department purchase cards
    ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall prohibit any employee of the 
Department who the Secretary or the Inspector General of the Department 
determines has knowingly misused a purchase card from serving as a 
purchase card holder or approving official. Such a prohibition shall be 
in addition to any other applicable penalty.
    ``(b) Misuse.--For purposes of this section, the term `misuse' 
means--
            ``(1) splitting purchases;
            ``(2) exceeding applicable purchase card limits or purchase 
        thresholds;
            ``(3) purchasing any unauthorized item;
            ``(4) using a purchase card without being an authorized 
        purchase card holder; or
            ``(5) violating ethics standards.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
725 the following new item:

``727. Misuse of Department purchase cards.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 (AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the quarterly report of One eCommerce Corporation (the Company) on form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harry Nass, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and,

2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.

Date: May 11, 2009

| |  |                                       
| |  | --------------------------------------
| |  |                                       
| |  | /s/ JOHN WELCH                        
| |  | John Welch
Principal Executive Officer

A certification furnished pursuant to this Item will not be deemed filed for purposes of section 18 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the small business issuer specifically incorporates it by reference.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DEMETRIS O. THOMAS,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv417/RV/EMT

EDWIN G. BUSS,

Respondent.

_____________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

by filing a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). On February 1, 2011, this court entered

an order denying Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and directing Petitioner to pay the

$5.00 filing fee, or explain his inability to do so, within thirty (30) days (Doc. 10). Petitioner

requested an extension of time to comply with the order; and the court extended the deadline to

March 17, 2011 (see Docs. 11, 12). Petitioner failed to comply with the order; therefore, on March

24, 2011, the court issued an order requiring Petitioner 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. 13). 

The time for compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed with no response from

Petitioner.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

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

order of the court.

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

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00417-RV-EMT Document 14 Filed 04/26/11 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, 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: 3:10cv417/RV/EMT

Case 3:10-cv-00417-RV-EMT Document 14 Filed 04/26/11 Page 2 of 2
* 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. 01-60391 Conference Calendar

DAVID GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WILLIE MAE WILLIAMS, Deputy Warden, MCCF; SHANNON GRIMES, Disciplinary Chairperson, MCCF; “UNKNOWN” CRAINE, Unit Case Manager, A Building, MCCF Disciplinary Board Member; “UNKNOWN” CROCKERN, Officer, Disciplinary Board Member, MCCF; “UNKNOWN” LYNCH, Sergeant, Disciplinary Investigator, MCCF; LESHA AGNUE, Internal Affairs, MCCF; JANE DOE, The 4th Disciplinary Committee Member, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:00-CV-82-D

-------------------- December 12, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * David Gray, Mississippi prisoner # 01440, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Gray argues that the defendants did not follow proper prison policies and procedures in collecting and handling his urine sample; the Rule Violation Report (RVR) was not issued until 54 days after the urine sample was taken; the RVR incorrectly states that the violation was unauthorized possession of marijuana and not unauthorized use of marijuana; and the investigator and WardenNo. 01-60391 -2- Williams failed to investigate the RVR to ensure that the proper prison policies were followed. Gray has not shown that the district court erred in determining that Gray’s loss of visiting privileges and change in custodial classification were not sufficiently severe punishments to entitle him to due process protections in view of Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Gray also argues that Warden Williams violated his right of access to the courts by failing to return documents which were attached to his administrative appeal. Because Warden Williams’ failure to return the documents did not prevent Gray from filing this action or appeal, he had not shown that Warden Williams violated his right of access to the court. See Lewis v. Casey , 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996). Gray argues the district court erred in dismissing his action without allowing him the opportunity to conduct discovery. Because Gray does not state what information he expected to uncover with discovery, his argument is conclusional and he has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his action without allowing him a sufficient opportunity to conduct discovery. King v. Dogan , 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994). For the first time on appeal, Gray argues that a new prison policy which limits his access to three legal file folders at a time violates his right of access to the courts. This issue may not be raised for the first time on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co. , 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

LLOYD ANTHONY WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:11cv165-SPM/WCS

ERIC H. HOLDER, et al.,

Respondents.

_____________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation dated November 1, 2011 (doc. 31). Petitioner has been

deported, and thus 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 hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 31) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed as moot

because Petitioner has already been released from detention, the relief 

Case 4:11-cv-00165-SPM-WCS Document 32 Filed 12/07/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

requested in the amended petition. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of December, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

 CASE NO. 4:11cv165-SPM/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00165-SPM-WCS Document 32 Filed 12/07/11 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DERREL THOMAS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No: 4:11-cv-46-MP-GRJ

JORAM PEREZ,

OFFICER BRADSHAW, and

OFFICER BOCCACCIO,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Boccaccio’s Motion For Extension

Of Time To Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint. (Doc. 25.) Defendant

Boccaccio seeks a 60-day extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the

amended complaint (Doc. 17) because counsel was not assigned the case until two

days prior to the deadline for responding to the amended complaint. 

Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED:

Defendant Boccaccio’s Motion For Extension Of Time To Answer or Otherwise

Respond to Complaint (Doc. 25) is GRANTED. Defendant Boccaccio shall

answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint on or before February

28, 2012.

DONE AND ORDERED this 29 day of December 2011. 

th

s/ Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:11-cv-00046-MP-GRJ Document 26 Filed 12/29/11 Page 1 of 1