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

Case No. 4:11cv218-RH/WCS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MARCHELLO JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:11cv218-RH/WCS

OFFICER LYNCH,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

recommendation, ECF No. 19. No objections have been filed. Upon 

consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s 

opinion. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “This case is DISMISSED 

without prejudice.” The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on February 9, 2012.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 4:11-cv-00218-RH-WCS Document 24 Filed 02/09/12 Page 1 of 1
1

The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3101

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Michael Todd Sneed, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 15, 2004

Filed: March 24, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Todd Sneed challenges the sentence the district court1

 imposed after

he pleaded guilty to distributing 5 or more grams of methamphetamine, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced Sneed to 20 months

imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. For reversal, Sneed argues the district

court clearly erred in denying him a 2-level safety-valve reduction, and the court
-2-

abused its discretion in preventing the probation officer from testifying at sentencing

about whether Sneed possessed any information unknown to the government.

The district court did not clearly err in denying the reduction, because Sneed

remained silent during his presentence interview when the probation officer asked

him about relevant conduct outside the offense of conviction. See U.S.S.G.

§ 5C1.2(a)(5) (to receive safety-valve relief defendant must provide “Government all

information and evidence” he has “concerning the offense or offenses that were part

of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan”); United States v.

Gutierrez-Maldonado, 328 F.3d 1018, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (defendant

not entitled to safety-valve relief where factual basis of guilty plea was limited to

recitation of own actions about crime, and statements to probation officer were

limited and incomplete); United States v. O’Dell, 204 F.3d 829, 838 (8th Cir. 2000)

(standard of review). Sneed had an obligation to provide the government with the

information in his possession, see United States v. Ivester, 75 F.3d 182, 185-86 (4th

Cir.) (safety-valve relief requires defendant to act affirmatively; defendant is not

entitled to relief merely because government never sought him out for debriefing),

cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1011 (1996), even if he believed that his codefendants had

already provided the information, see United States v. Acosta-Olivas, 71 F.3d 375,

377-79 (10th Cir. 1995) (safety-valve relief requires defendant to tell government “all

he knows” even if his information would not be useful to government).

We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in preventing

the probation officer from testifying about whether Sneed possessed information

unknown to the government, because we agree with the court that any such testimony

would have been speculative. See United States v. Hill, 943 F.2d 873, 875 (8th Cir.

1991) (standard of review). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
# C_2011120EN.01000101.xml

| 16.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 120/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/1

---

2011/C 120/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 113, 9.4.2011

OJ C 113, 9.4.2011

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 103, 2.4.2011

OJ C 95, 26.3.2011

OJ C 89, 19.3.2011

OJ C 80, 12.3.2011

OJ C 72, 5.3.2011

OJ C 63, 26.2.2011

These texts are available on:

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

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5582 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5582

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a study 
  and submit a report on barriers to accessing abuse-deterrent opioid 
 formulations for individuals enrolled in a plan under part C or D of 
                         the Medicare program.

    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 at the ``Abuse Deterrent Access Act of 
2018''.

SEC. 2. STUDY ON ABUSE-DETERRENT OPIOID FORMULATIONS ACCESS BARRIERS 
              UNDER MEDICARE.

    (a) In General.--Not later than on1e year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
conduct a study and submit to Congress a report on the adequacy of 
access to abuse-deterrent opioid formulations for individuals with 
chronic pain enrolled in an MA-PD plan under part C of title XVIII of 
the Social Security Act or a prescription drug plan under part D of 
such title of such Act, taking into account any barriers preventing 
such individuals from accessing such formulations under such MA-PD or 
part D plans, such as cost-sharing tiers, fail-first requirements, the 
price of such formulations, and prior authorization requirements.
    (b) Definition of Abuse-Deterrent Opioid Formulation.--In this 
section, the term ``abuse-deterrent opioid formulation'' means an 
opioid that is a prodrug or that has certain abuse-deterrent 
properties, such as physical or chemical barriers, agonist or 
antagonist combinations, aversion properties, delivery system 
mechanisms, or other features designed to prevent abuse of such opioid.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 12, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5582

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a study 
  and submit a report on barriers to accessing abuse-deterrent opioid 
 formulations for individuals enrolled in a plan under part C or D of 
                         the Medicare program.
```
# C_2011005EN.01000801.xml

| 8.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/8

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

2011/C 5/06

Image

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Slovakia

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Slovakia

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the Community providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country: Slovakia

Subject of commemoration: The 20th anniversary of the formation of the Visegrad Group

Description of the design: The inner part of the coin depicts a map of the four countries that comprise the Visegrad Group: the Republic of Poland, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, and the Republic of Hungary. The map is supplemented by a stylized abbreviation ‘V IV’. The name of the issuing country, ‘SLOVENSKO’, is located in the lower right part and the year ‘2011’ is in the lower left part of the coin field. The design is surrounded by the legend ‘VYŠEHRADSKÁ SKUPINA • VISEGRAD GROUP’ and the date of the Visegrad Group foundation ‘15.2.1991’. The initials of the author of the coin’s design, Miroslav Rónai ‘MR’, and the mark of the Kremnica Mint, ‘MK’, appear under the name of the country.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European Union flag.

Volume of issuance: 1 million coins

Date of issue: January 2011

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
| Name of Subsidiary                                             |   | Jurisdiction        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------|
| Cadapult Graphic Systems, Inc.                                 |   | New Jersey          |
|    wholly owned                                 |   |                |
| Media Sciences, Inc.                                           |   | New Jersey          |
|    wholly owned                                 |   |                |
| Media Sciences UK Limited                                      |   | England & Wales |
|    wholly owned by Media Sciences, Inc.         |   |                |
| MSIA, LLC                                                      |   | Delaware            |
|    wholly owned by Media Sciences, Inc.         |   |                |
| Media Sciences Trading, Ltd.                                   |   | Bermuda             |
|    wholly owned by Media Sciences, Inc.         |   |                |
| Media Sciences Hong Kong Co. Ltd.                              |   | Hong Kong           |
|    wholly owned by Media Sciences Trading, Ltd. |   |                |
| SAMC Funding I, Ltd.                                           |   | Cayman Islands      |
|    wholly owned by Media Sciences Trading, Ltd. |   |                |
**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 Annual Report of Voice Assist, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Metcalf, Chief Executive 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.

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

/s/ Michael Metcalf              

Michael Metcalf

Chief Executive Officer 

August 15, 2011
* 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. 98-10913 Conference Calendar

TERRY JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BEN CLICK; TOBY SHOOK; PAUL JOHNSON, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:98-CV-1153-H

-------------------- October 19, 1999 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Terry James, Texas prisoner No. 337449, appeals the district court’s dismissal, as frivolous, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claim. The district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that James’ claim for damages against defendant Toby Shook was barred by the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity. See Boyd v. Biggers , 31 F.3d 279, 285 (5th Cir. 1994). James’ remaining claims are barred by the doctrine articulated in Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). See Hudson v. Hughes , 98 F.3d 868, 872 (5th Cir. 1996).No. 98-10913 -2-
AFFIRMED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 244 (Thursday, December 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72343-72344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-6114]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION:  Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee will hold a 
meeting on January 11, 2008 at the Sierra Nevada College, 999 Tahoe 
Boulevard, Incline Village, NV, 89451. This Committee, established by 
the Secretary of Agriculture on December 15, 1998 (64 FR 2876), is 
chartered to provide advice to the Secretary on implementing the terms 
of the Federal Interagency Partnership on the Lake Tahoe Region and 
other matters raised by the Secretary.

DATES: The meeting will be held January 11, 2008, beginning at 1 p.m. 
and ending at 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Sierra Nevada College, 999 Tahoe 
Boulevard, Incline Village, NV 89451.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arla Hains, Lake Tahoe Basin 
Management Unit, Forest Service, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 
96150, (530) 543-2773.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Items to be covered on the agenda include: 
(1) Monitoring/Science Funding Outside the Lake Tahoe Basin; (2) Review 
of the Hazardous Fuels Projects; and (3) Public Comment. All Lake Tahoe 
Basin Federal Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. 
Interested citizens are encouraged to attend at the above address. 
Issues may be brought to the attention of the Committee during the open 
public comment period at the meeting or by filing written statements 
with the secretary for the Committee before or after the meeting. 
Please refer any written comments to the Lake

[[Page 72344]]

Tahoe Basin Management Unit at the contact address stated above.

    Dated: December 11, 2007.
Terri Marceron,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 07-6114 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00483-CV

John Martin, Appellant

v.

Charles Bonney, Board Administrator for the Texas Board of 

Pardons and Paroles, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. GN201825, HONORABLE PATRICK O. KEEL, JUDGE PRESIDING 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

AppellantJohn Martin’s brief was due to be filed in this Court on September 8, 2003,

but was not. On October 29, 2003, appellant was advised in writing that his brief was overdue and

that his appeal would be dismissed if he did not file his brief on or before November 3, 2003. See

Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(2). Appellant has not filed a brief or otherwise responded to the Court’s

notices. 

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b) and (c).

__________________________________________

Mack Kidd, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Puryear

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: December 18, 2003
Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, **

**UNITED STATES CODE)**

 

Pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersignedofficer of Mimvi, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company onForm 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of  1934; and

 

(2) The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

March 12, 2012
# C_2011026EN.01000102.xml

| 28.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6089 — PAI/Hunkemöller)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 26/02

On 24 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 32011M6089. 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 32011M6089. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL ARRINGTON, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 1:11cv106-SPM/GRJ

THOMAS KINSEY and

SADIE DARNELL,

Defendants.

___________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This cause comes before the Court upon the Defendant Sadie Darnell’s

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Counterclaim with Prejudice (doc. 67) and

Notice of Filing (doc. 68). The Parties have stipulated to this notice of voluntary

dismissal and an entry of an order dismissing the counterclaim by Sadie Darnell,

as Sheriff of Alachua County. The Court has already issued an Order of

Dismissal in this case regarding the counterclaim by Sadie Darnell (doc. 66).

However, per the Parties’ stipulation and the Court’s finding that the terms are

proper pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(2), it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the counterclaim filed by Sadie Darnell

is dismissed with prejudice.
Page 2 of 2

SO ORDERED this 8th day of November, 2012. 

S/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

CASE NO.: 1:11cv106-SPM/GRJ
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

FRANKLIN FATUSIN, 

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:11cv163-MP-CAS

ERIC H. HOLDER, et al., 

Respondents.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated February 28, 2012. (Doc. 32). 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 petitioner’s objections

thereto (docs. 34, 36), 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. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 12) filed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of August, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:11-cv-00163-MP-CAS Document 42 Filed 08/10/12 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DANIEL C. ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 3:11cv173-WS

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,,

Commissioner of Social 

Security Administration,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

April 23, 2012. See Doc. 11. The magistrate judge recommends that the

Commissioner's decision to deny the plaintiff's application for benefits be affirmed. The

plaintiff has filed no objections to the report and recommendation. 

Having carefully reviewed the record, this court finds that the magistrate judge's

report and recommendation should be adopted. Because there was substantial

evidence in the record to support the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits, it is

ORDERED:

1. The court ADOPTS the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to

Case 3:11-cv-00173-WS-MD Document 12 Filed 05/23/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

affirm the Commissioner's denial of the plaintiff's application for benefits.

2. The Commissioner's decision to deny Plaintiff's application for benefits is

AFFIRMED.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of May , 2012.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-00173-WS-MD Document 12 Filed 05/23/12 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

KEVIN CHAMBERLAIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 4:10-CV-477-SPM/WCS

INTEGRACLICK INC, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER EXTENDING TIME 

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Plaintiffs’ Unopposed

Motions (docs. 12, 13) for Extension of Time to Respond to the Defendants’

Motions to Dismiss (docs. 5, 9). The Court finds these requests to be reasonable. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Motions (docs. 12, 13) are granted. 

2. Plaintiffs shall have until December 17, 2010, to respond to the

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.

DONE AND ORDERED this seventh day of December, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge