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

KELVIN FRAZIER,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 3:10cv81/MCR/MD

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff initiated this case by filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983 on February 4, 2010 (doc. 1). He has now filed a letter motion indicating his desire

to voluntarily dismiss this case. (Doc. 13). 

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal (doc. 13) be granted, that this case be

dismissed without prejudice, and the clerk be directed to close the file.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 24 day of May, 2010. 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 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 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 (11th Cir. 1988).
# C_2011210EN.01002401.xml

| 16.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 210/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 210/24

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 July 2011

2011/C 210/10

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4146 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 111,97 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4568 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87750 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2121 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1577 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8665 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,490 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 270,70 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7092 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0348 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2633 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3344 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3264 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3549 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,0241 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6815 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7237 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 497,69 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,7576 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,1426 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4315 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 082,89 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2523 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,709 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,7535 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,551 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2283 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,5510 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 62,9710 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4146

JPY

Japanese yen

111,97

DKK

Danish krone

7,4568

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87750

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2121

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1577

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8665

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,490

HUF

Hungarian forint

270,70

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7092

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0348

RON

Romanian leu

4,2633

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3344

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3264

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3549

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,0241

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6815

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7237

KRW

South Korean won

1 497,69

ZAR

South African rand

9,7576

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,1426

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4315

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 082,89

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2523

PHP

Philippine peso

60,709

RUB

Russian rouble

39,7535

THB

Thai baht

42,551

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2283

MXN

Mexican peso

16,5510

INR

Indian rupee

62,9710

---

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

1

Source

---
ex-10.25

 

 PROMISSORY NOTE
 

 For value received, BIOSHAFT WATER TECHNOLOGY, INC. (the “Borrower”) promises to pay to the order of SUSTAINABLE WATER CORP. (the “Lender”) in lawful money of the United States of America, the aggregate amount of $11,000 (the “Principal Amount”), plus interest at a rate of 15% per annum, calculated compounded monthly, both before and after maturity and default, as follows: 
 

 1.
 Interest shall be payable monthly in arrears on the last business day of each month, commencing July 24, 2014 until the Principal Amount is paid in full. 
 2.
 The Principal Amount and all accrued and unpaid interest shall be due and be paid in full on July 25, 2015. 
 3.
 The Principal Amount may be prepaid in whole or in part at any time without notice, bonus or penalty, together with all interest accrued and unpaid to the date of such prepayment. 
 

 This Promissory Note is being delivered in accordance with a Loan Agreement between the Borrower and the Lender dated July 7, 2015. 
 

 Dated: July 25, 2014. 
 

 BIOSHAFT WATER TECHNOLOGY, INC. 
 

 By: /s/ Bashar Amin 
 Authorized Signatory
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

# ACTION:

Announcement of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the 22nd meeting of the American Health Information Community Consumer Empowerment Workgroup in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.)

# DATES:

January 29, 2008, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. [Eastern].

# ADDRESSES:

Mary C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20201), Conference Room 4090. Please bring photo ID for entry to a Federal building.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

*http:///www.hhs.gov/​healthit/​ahic/​consumer/​.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Workgroup will continue its discussion on how to encourage the widespread adoption of a personal health record that is easy-to-use, portable, longitudinal, affordable, and consumer-centered.

                    The meeting will be available via Web cast. For additional information, go to:                     *http://www.hhs.gov/​healthit/​ahic/​consumer/​ce_​instruct.html.*

Judith Sparrow,

Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.

[FR Doc. 07-6133 Filed 12-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4150-45-M
# C_2010222EN.01000101.xml

| 17.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

16 August 2010

2010/C 222/01

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2820 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 109,49 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4498 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,82110 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4943 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,3350 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9540 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,853 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 280,20 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7085 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9929 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2313 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9382 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4379 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3366 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,9642 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8235 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7464 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 521,95 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,3551 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,7281 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2350 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 513,77 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0787 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,272 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,1325 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,787 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2682 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,2970 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 60,0040 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2820

JPY

Japanese yen

109,49

DKK

Danish krone

7,4498

GBP

Pound sterling

0,82110

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4943

CHF

Swiss franc

1,3350

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9540

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,853

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

280,20

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7085

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9929

RON

Romanian leu

4,2313

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9382

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4379

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3366

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,9642

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8235

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7464

KRW

South Korean won

1 521,95

ZAR

South African rand

9,3551

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,7281

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2350

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 513,77

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0787

PHP

Philippine peso

58,272

RUB

Russian rouble

39,1325

THB

Thai baht

40,787

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2682

MXN

Mexican peso

16,2970

INR

Indian rupee

60,0040

---

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

1

Source

---
# C_2010231EN.01000601.xml

| 27.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5839 — Schlumberger/Smith International)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 231/02

On 26 July 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 32010M5839. 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 32010M5839. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Exhibit 14.2
 
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in Amendment No.4 to the Registration Statement, No.333-102800, of DRDGOLD Limited on Form F-3 and Registration Statement, No.333-121386, of DRDGOLD Limited on Form F-4 of our report dated November 26, 2004 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of  Crown Gold Recoveries (Proprietary) Limited  and its subsidiaries as of June 30, 2004 and June 30, 2003 and the related consolidated  income  statements,  statements of changes in  equity,  cash flow statements and notes thereto for the years then ended, which report appears  as an exhibit to the Annual Report on Form 20-F of DRDGOLD Limited for the year ended June 30, 2004. /s/ KPMG Inc KPMG Inc Registered Accountants and Auditors Chartered Accountants (SA)Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa December 15, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1745

CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY, c/o HealthSmart Casualty Claims Solutions,

Petitioner,

v.

LLOYD LAMBERT; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (18-0358-BLA)

Submitted: January 26, 2021 Decided: January 29, 2021

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy W. Gresham, Kendra R. Prince, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, 

Virginia, for Petitioner. Joseph E. Wolfe, Victoria S. Herman, WOLFE WILLIAMS & 

REYNOLDS, Norton, Virginia; Sean G. Bajkowski, Sarah M. Hurley, Office of the 

Solicitor - Black Lung Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Clinchfield Coal Company petitions for review of the Benefits Review Board’s 

(BRB) decision and order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) award of black 

lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-944. Our review of the BRB’s decision is 

limited to considering “whether substantial evidence supports the factual findings of the 

ALJ and whether the legal conclusions of the [BRB] and ALJ are rational and consistent 

with applicable law.” Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Stallard, 876 F.3d 663, 668 (4th Cir. 

2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Substantial evidence is more than a mere 

scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate 

to support a conclusion.” Sea “B” Mining Co. v. Addison, 831 F.3d 244, 252 (4th Cir.

2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). “To determine whether this standard has been 

met, we consider whether all of the relevant evidence has been analyzed and whether the 

ALJ has sufficiently explained [her] rationale in crediting certain evidence.” Hobet 

Mining, LLC v. Epling, 783 F.3d 498, 504 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

Our review of the record discloses that the BRB’s decision is based upon substantial 

evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for 

the reasons stated by the BRB. Lambert v. Clinchfield Coal Co., No. 18-0358-BLA 

(B.R.B. May 21, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

REHABCARE GROUP EAST, INC. d/b/a

REHABCARE GROUP THERAPY 

SERVICES, INC.,

PLAINTIFF,

CASE NO. 1:11CV66-SPM/GRJ

v.

HEALTH FACILITIES, INC. d/b/a

TRI-COUNTY NURSING HOME,

DEFENDANT.

___________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal (doc. 43) and Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. This case is dismissed with prejudice. 

2. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney fees.

3. The clerk is directed to close this case.

4. The Court shall retain jurisdiction for a period of 60 days, during which

time any party may move to reopen for good cause shown.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of January, 2012.

S/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-00066-SPM-GRJ Document 44 Filed 01/09/12 Page 1 of 1
N OTE : 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

______________________
L ARA S UE G ARNER , Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, San Diego, CA, argued for plaintiff

- appellee. Also represented by S EAN D ONOVAN F LAHERTY , M ATTHEW G. K LEINER , S USAN B. M EYER

.
R UDOLPH A. T ELSCHER , J R ., Husch Blackwell LLP, St. Louis, MO, argued for defendant

- appellant. Also represented by K ARA R ENEE F USSNER , D AISY M ANNING

.

______________________ Case: 21-1978 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 04/05/2022T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (C HEN , S CHALL , and S TOLL , Circuit Judges ).
AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

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 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60378

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

RICHARD BEN, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:16-CV-1

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Richard Ben pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) for using a 

firearm during a crime of violence. Ben argues his conviction should be vacated 

because the predicate crime of robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2111, is no longer “a crime 

of violence” under § 924(c)(1). In United States v. Brewer, we held that robbery 

by intimidation under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) is “a crime of violence.” 848 F.3d 

711, 716 (5th Cir. 2017). The definitions of robbery under both § 2113(a) and § 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 6, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60378 Document: 00515188383 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
No. 18-60378

2

2111 are the same. Ben’s counsel conceded that Brewer controls in this case 

during oral argument. Ben cannot prevail because Brewer forecloses the 

argument that robbery under § 2111 is not a predicate “crime of violence.”

For the reasons described, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment. 

 Case: 18-60378 Document: 00515188383 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER STEVENS, 

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:11-cv-00065-MP-CAS

SECRETARY, FLORIDA

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, 

Respondents.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation dated October 31, 2013. (Doc. 12). 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). The petitioner has not objected to

the Report Recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed.

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 hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

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, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254, (doc. 6) is DENIED.
Page 2 of 2

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of December, 2013

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 4:11-cv-00065-MP-CAS
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7254

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MICHAEL DOUGLAS VOS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. ( 4:02

- cr - 00752

- RBH

- 1; 4:19

- cv - 00203

- CWH )

Submitted : December 19, 2019 Decided: December 23, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Michael Douglas Vos, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael Douglas Vos seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will n ot issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find th at the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the p risoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude th at Vos has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED