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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

LOUIS REED, JR.,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No.: 5:10cv264/SPM/MD

WALTER A. MCNEIL, et al.,

Respondents.

_____________________________________________________________________

O R D E R

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

this action by filing a 33-page petition (not including exhibits) under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

(Doc. 1). The Local Rules of this court provide: “No petition, complaint, or memorandum

may exceed 25 pages absent leave of court upon a showing of good cause.” N. D. Fla.

Loc. R. 5.1(J)(3). Petitioner did not obtain this court’s permission to exceed the page limit.

Therefore, he will be required to correct this deficiency in an amended petition. 

To amend his petition, petitioner should completely fill out a new § 2254 form,

marking it “Amended Petition.” Petitioner should ensure that his amended petition

complies with both the instructions on the petition form and this court’s local rules. 

Petitioner should state his claims on the form itself as simply and concisely as possible. 

Facts that are extraneous to his claims should be excluded. Petitioner may add pages to

the petition form if necessary, or exceed the 6-page length of the form, but the total length

of the amended petition may not exceed 25 pages. Petitioner must obtain leave of court

and show good cause if the proposed amended petition exceeds that page limit. In this

regard the court notes that upon cursory review of the original petition, good cause for

permitting an over-long petition is not present. 
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Clerk shall forward to petitioner the form for use in § 2254 cases. This

case number and the words “Amended Petition” should be written on the form.

2. Within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this order, petitioner shall file

an amended petition, which shall be typed or clearly written and submitted on the court

form as instructed above. 

3. Petitioner’s failure to comply with this order as instructed may result in a

recommendation that this case be dismissed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 14 day of October, 2010. th

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No: 5:10cv264/SPM/MD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Civil No. 5:11cv114-RS

$10,325.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY

 /

ORDER OF FORFEITURE

Before me is the United States of America’s Motion For Decree of Forfeiture 

(Doc. 7). 

1. On April 22, 2011, a Verified Complaint of Forfeiture In Rem against the

Defendant property, $10,325.00 in United States Currency, was filed on

behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. The Complaint alleges that the

Defendant property is forfeitable to the United States of America pursuant to

21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). 

2. On May 16, 2011, Rita Gail Slayton, potential claimant, was sent notice of

the pending forfeiture action by certified mail. The parcel was returned to the

government as “Refused”. 

3. On May 16, 2011, Andy Malley,1342 County Road 2617, Marietta, Texas

75566, potential claimant, was sent notice of the pending forfeiture action

by certified mail. The parcel was returned to the government as “UAA

Forward Expired”. 

Case 5:11-cv-00114-RS-EMT Document 8 Filed 07/20/11 Page 1 of 3
4. On May 16, 2011, Andy Malley, 1129 Bahama Drive, Lima, Ohio 45801, 

potential claimant, was sent notice of the pending forfeiture action by

certified mail. The parcel was returned to the government as “Unclaimed”.

5. On May 17, 2011, Randy Wayne Sampson, potential claimant, through his

attorney, Harry L. Harper, was notified, by certified mail of the pending

forfeiture action.

6. On May 19, 2011, Philip Dale Brown, potential claimant of the defendant

property, was notified by certified mail of the pending forfeiture action

7. Notice of Forfeiture Action was published on an official government Internet

site, www.forfeiture.gov, for 30 consecutive days beginning May 17, 2011,

pursuant to Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C) of the Supplemental Rules of Admiralty or

Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. The Notice of Publication

was filed on June 28, 2011 (Doc. 6).

8. No other person or entity has filed a claim.

9. On June 16, 2011, Plaintiff and Claimant Randy Wayne Sampson, through

his attorney Harry L. Harper, entered into a settlement agreement whereby

$5,162.50 will be disbursed to Claimant Randy Wayne Sampson, and the

remaining $5,162.50 shall be forfeited to Plaintiff United States of America.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant property, $5,162.50 in United States Currency, shall be forfeited

to the United States of America and shall be disposed of according to law,

and no right, title or interest in that property shall exist in any other party. 

Case 5:11-cv-00114-RS-EMT Document 8 Filed 07/20/11 Page 2 of 3
Plaintiff shall issue a check to Claimant Randy Wayne Sampson for the

amount of $5,162.50 and forward that check to his counsel, Harry L. Harper,

Harper Law Office, P.O. Box 790, Panama City, Florida 32402. 

ORDERED on July 20, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

United States District Judge

Case 5:11-cv-00114-RS-EMT Document 8 Filed 07/20/11 Page 3 of 3
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

SYED MOHAMMED IQTIDAR

HAIDER, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10cv176-SPM/GRJ

TERRY D. JONES,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER

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

recommendation dated July 15, 2011 (doc. 17). Plaintiff17has 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 hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 5) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

Case 1:10-cv-00176-SPM-GRJ Document 18 Filed 08/22/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for failure

to state a cause of action.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of August, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

 CASE NO. 1:10cv176-SPM/GRJ

Case 1:10-cv-00176-SPM-GRJ Document 18 Filed 08/22/11 Page 2 of 2
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1] 

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the market for the securities of Avitech LifeSciences, Inc. (“Avitech,” trading symbol AVLF), may be reacting to manipulative forces or deceptive practices and that there is insufficient current public information about the issuer upon which an informed investment decision may be made, particularly concerning (1) the identity of and prior securities fraud judgments against persons who appear to be involved in the offer and sale of Avitech shares; (2) the financial performance and business prospects of Avitech; and (3) offerings to foreign investors and any restrictions on the resale of shares. 

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. 

Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed company is suspended for the period of 9:30 a.m. EST, December 14, 2007 through 11:59 p.m. EST, on December 28, 2007. 

By the Commission. 

J. Lynn Taylor, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 07-6095 Filed 12-14-07; 12:26 pm] 

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

PETER TERENCE RUSS,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv289/RS-EMT

UNKNOWN FEDERAL AGENTCY [sic],

Defendant.

__________________________________/

ORDER

Before me are the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14)

and Plaintiff’s objections (Docs. 18 and 19). 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is approved and

incorporated in this Order.

2. This case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on January 5, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

 CHELESTA DAWSON,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv261/RS-MD

W. FRANK McKEITHEN, in his official

capacity as Sheriff of Bay County; CITY OF

MEXICO BEACH; JOSEPH NUGENT, in his

official capacity as Sheriff of Gulf County,

Florida; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22). No

objections have been filed.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is approved and is

incorporated in this Order.

2. The Federal Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss (Doc. 12) is granted and the

United States of America is dismissed as a party-defendant in this case.

3. This case is remanded to the Circuit Court for Gulf County, Florida. 

4. The clerk is directed to close the file.

 ORDERED on February 28, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

CENTENNIAL BANK,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:11cv28-RH/WCS

PETER S. ROSEN et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER STRIKING THE THIRD, FIFTH, SIXTH,

AND SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

The plaintiff has moved to strike the answer’s third, fifth, sixth, and seventh

affirmative defenses. The defendant has consented to the motion, thus abandoning

these defenses. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The plaintiff’s consented motion, ECF No. 34, to strike the answer’s third,

fifth, sixth, and seventh affirmative defenses is GRANTED. The affirmative

defenses are struck. 

SO ORDERED on May 13, 2011.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:11-cv-00028-RH-WCS Document 42 Filed 05/13/11 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
HealthDesk Corporation
Computation of Loss per Share
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                          Year Ended                 Year Ended
                                                                                       December 31, 1996         December 31, 1997
                                                                                       -----------------         -----------------
<S>                                                                                         <C>                    <C>      
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding ..........................             2,218,645              5,212,060

Shares issuable pursuant to conversion of preferred stock, warrants and stock
   options issued during the 12 month period prior to the filing of the initial
   public offering registration statement, less shares assumed repurchased at
   the offering price of $5.00 per share ......................................             1,694,788                   --
                                                                                          -----------            -----------

Total for both Basic and Diluted Calculations .................................             3,913,433              5,212,060
                                                                                          -----------            -----------

Net Loss ......................................................................           $(4,391,454)           $(3,817,247)
                                                                                          ===========            ===========

Basic loss per share ..........................................................           $     (1.12)           $     (0.73)
                                                                                          ===========            ===========

Diluted loss per share ........................................................           $     (1.12)           $     (0.73)
                                                                                          ===========            ===========

</TABLE>
Exhibit No. 32.1
----------------
Form 10-Q
SMSA El Paso 1 Acquisition Corp.
File No. 0-53132


          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 SMSA El Paso 1 Acquisition Corp. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
Crimmins,  Chief Executive and 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 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.


Date: May 29, 2008                          By:       /s/ Richard Crimmins
      ------------                              --------------------------------
                                                                Richard Crimmins
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                                     and Chief Financial Officer



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to SMSA El Paso 1  Acquisition  Corp.  and will be retained by SMSA El
Paso 1 Acquisition Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
1 The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3172

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. John Edward Mull, also known as John * Eddie Mull, also known as Eddie Mull, * [UNPUBLISHED] also known as John Edward Maul, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: July 28, 2006 Filed: August 7, 2006

___________ Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. With a certificate of appealability (COA) issued by the district court, 1 John Edward Mull challenges the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We affirm. We conclude that Mull’s sentence is unaffected by United States v. R.L.C. , 503 U.S. 291 (1992). The case that c ould affect his sentence is United States v. Booker ,-2- 543 U.S. 220 (2005), but it does not apply retroactively to Mull, whose conviction became final before Booker was decided. See Never Misses A Shot v. United States , 413 F.3d 781, 783-84 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curi am). We further conclude that a citation error in the district court’s order denying Mull’s sec tion 2255 motion, which the court corrected when the error was brought to its attention, is not an independent basis for relief. These are the only issues that are within th e scope of the COA. See United States v. Robinson , 301 F.3d 923, 927 (8th Cir. 2002) (issues beyond scope of COA are not properly before this court). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny the motion to expand the record and the application to enlarge the COA.

______________________________
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MARSHON EUGENE DEMONS,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv388/WS/MD

WALTER A. MCNEIL, 

Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Petitioner initiated

this action on October 1, 2010 by filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1, p. 11 in ECF). The petition was not accompanied by the

filing fee or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and was also short one service

copy. 

Accordingly, on October 20, 2010 the court issued an order requiring

petitioner to provide an additional service copy of his petition and, in addition, to 

either pay the filing fee or submit a complete application for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis. Petitioner was given twenty-eight (28) days in which to comply with

the order, and warned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that

this case be dismissed. (Doc. 4). A copy of the order was mailed to petitioner at his

address of record, Century Correctional Institution (“Century CI”). However, it was

returned as undeliverable on November 2, 2010. Century CI had noted on the

envelope that petitioner was released on October 2, 2010 (“EOS 10-2-10”), and had

forwarded the mail to petitioner’s stated address upon release: 13 Gibson St., Fort

Walton Beach, Florida. See also www.dc.state.fl.us. Delivery had been attempted

at that address, but the mail was returned to this court, marked “Return to Sender -
Page 2 of 2

Refused - Unable to Forward.” (Doc. 6). 

Because it appeared that the Department of Corrections’ forwarding address

may have lacked a zip code, the court, in an abundance of caution, re-mailed a copy

of the October 20, 2010 order to petitioner at the following address: 13 Gibson St.,

Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548. (Doc. 7). On November 19, 2010, the mail was

again returned as undeliverable marked, “Return to Sender - Not Deliverable As

Addressed - Unable to Forward.” (Doc. 8). 

It has been over thirty days since petitioner’s release, and petitioner has not

provided the court with his current address.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for plaintiff’s failure

to keep the court informed of his current address.

2. That the clerk be directed to close the file.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 22 day of November, 2010. nd

 /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 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 (11 Cir. 1988). th

Case No: 3:10cv388/WS/MD
# C_2010228EN.01000601.xml

| 25.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5917 — Triton Fund III/Tyco Waterworks Europe)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 228/04

On 19 August 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 32010M5917. 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 32010M5917. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JEAN M MEADOWS, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00045-MP-GRJ

CITY OF INGLIS, TIMOTHY LETSON, BRANDON ROBERTS, 

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 56, Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Reply

Memorandum by Timothy Letson and Brandon Roberts. Defendants Letson and Roberts filed

a motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity to which the plaintiff has

responded. Defendants now request an opportunity to explain why plaintiff’s cited case, Davis

v. Williams, 451 F.3d 759 (11th Cir. 2006), is not applicable to this case and is not clearly

established authority which would dissolve defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity. 

Plaintiff does not oppose defendants' filing of a reply memorandum.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendants’ unopposed motion for leave to file reply memorandum, Doc. 56, is

GRANTED.

2. Defendants may file a reply memorandum on or before November 15, 2011.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of November, 2011. 

áBZtÜç eA ]ÉÇxá 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-00045-MP-GRJ Document 57 Filed 11/01/11 Page 1 of 1