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

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LAURA MATTHEWS, )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. )

 )

BROOKSTONE STORES, INC., et al., )

Defendants. )

 ) CIVIL ACTION 05-0369-WS-C

 )

BROOKSTONE STORES, INC., )

Third-Party Plaintiff, )

 )

v. )

 )

D&M SALES, INC., )

Third-Party Defendant. )

ORDER

On January 31, 2006, plaintiff Laura Matthews filed a pleading styled “Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Class Action Complaint” (doc. 77). Upon sua sponte review of this pleading and the

court file, the Court notes that plaintiff has at no time requested leave of Court to file her Second

Amended Complaint. Under Rule 15(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., after a responsive pleading has been

served, “a party may amend the party’s pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of

the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Id. (emphasis

added). Defendant Brookstone Stores, Inc. filed its Answer (doc. 71) on January 6, 2006, and

defendant D&M Sales, Inc. filed an Answer (doc. 60) back on December 12, 2005. As such,

plaintiff is no longer entitled to amend her pleading as of right, pursuant to Rule 15(a). 

However, the court file reflects neither that plaintiff sought leave of Court to file her proposed

Second Amended Complaint, nor that defendants have consented in writing to such amendment. 

As such, in its present posture plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is improper,

impermissible, and violative of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

It is no valid response to suggest, as plaintiff does, that her filing is authorized by

Case 1:05-cv-00369-WS-C Document 78 Filed 02/01/06 Page 1 of 2
-2-

Magistrate Judge Cassady’s Order (doc. 56) dated December 5, 2005, wherein he set a deadline

of January 31, 2006 for plaintiff to amend her pleadings. Judge Cassady’s Order did not purport

to grant her leave to file an amended pleading for Rule 15(a) purposes, but was instead in the

nature of a Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order. Rule 15(a) and the Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order

impose distinct, cumulative obligations on federal litigants, and compliance with one does not

and cannot excuse noncompliance with the other.

In light of this procedural defect, plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (doc. 77) is

hereby STRICKEN for failure to comply with Rule 15(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. 

DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of February, 2006.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00369-WS-C Document 78 Filed 02/01/06 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL STEPP, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-0303-BH-C

MIKE HALEY, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the

issue raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of

the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of

this Court. It is ORDERED that the claims against defendant Rose Johnson defendant Rose

Johnson be and are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(I).

DONE this 14th day of September, 2005.

 s/ W. B. Hand 

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00303-BH-C Document 27 Filed 09/14/05 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                      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 Nortia Capital Partners, Inc.
(the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the period ending April 30, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William J. Bosso, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the
best of my knowledge, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002,

       i.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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


/s/ WILLIAM J. BOSSO
--------------------------------------
William J. Bosso, Chief Executive Officer
Date:   July 30, 2007
#### John D. Baker, et al., *v.*J. W. Tandy, et al.

Highways — Damages'on Account of Opening Of.

Where damages are awarded to the owners of land taken for a highway, such damages must be tendered or paid into court before their land can be taken.

*702APPEAL PROM CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT.

May 8, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

The place of beginning for the change in the road is described in the viewer’s report with such certainty as to leave no difficulty in ascertaining it; and taking the line as surveyed as the center of the route, which is made so by law, and the alteration is described by metes and bounds, courses and distances in the report, and the terminus is fixed therein with exact certainty.. There is, therefore, no objection to the report of the viewers; and the court having adopted that as the route for the purposed change in the road, the judgment to that extent is approved.

The sheriff was commanded by the writ of ad quod damnum to summon the jury to meet on the i8th of March, 1874, but if from any sufficient reason the jury could not attend and be sworn on that day, he was directed to summon them to meet on some other day to be fixed by himself, giving due notice to the parties interested. The inquest was held on the 26th of March, 1874, of which, as the sheriff returns show, he gave to appellants due notice. The writ and inquest were returned to court, and no exceptions were taken thereto, for the want of notice of the time and place of the meeting of the jury, or for any irregularity in the proceeding; and if any defects existed they were waived by failing to except in the lower court.

The jury fixed in their verdict what would be a just compensation to each of the appellants for their land taken, and the cost of making the additional fencing by the establishment of the alteration of the road; and they found that no damage wduld result to the residue of the appellants’ lands. The verdict responded to all the requirements of the writ, and seems to be complete.

But there is a fatal defect in the judgment in leaving the sums to be paid to Baker and Darbro respectively in blank. If as it appears they declined to take the damages assessed when tendered to them, the money should have been ordered to be paid into court for them; and placed in their power to receive the compensation for their property whenever they should choose to do so, and not compel them to resort to their actions at law to get it, or to await the pleasure of those who had to pay it. Compensation must be previously made before their land can be taken, or it must be in such a condition that they can get it, when it shall be their pleasure to receive it.

Wherefore the judgment of the circuit court is *reversed*for the *703single error pointed out, and the cause remanded with directions to reverse the order of the county court, and for a judgment to be entered in conformity with this opinion.

*W. B. & M. W. Winslow, for appellants.*

*Masterson & Gaunt, for appellees.*
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellant,

v.

TOTAL ORTHOPAEDICS CARE P.A., a/a/o ADRIANA CRUZ, JAMIE 

GUM & YASMEEN ABDULRAZZAK,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-161

[June 30, 2021]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Kathleen McCarthy, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. COCE16-

19463, CACE18-27847, COCE 16-19475, CACE 18-29629, COCE 16-

19469, and CACE 19-2711.

Michael A. Rosenberg, Thomas L. Hunker, Peter D. Weinstein and 

Adrianna de la Cruz-Munoz of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Plantation, for 

appellant.

David Brian Pakula of David B. Pakula, P.A., Pembroke Pines, and Amir 

Fleischer of Marks & Fleischer, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Geico Indem. Co. v. Muransky Chiropractic, P.A., 46 Fla. 

L. Weekly D1513a, 2021 WL 2584107 (Fla. 4th DCA June 24, 2021).

CIKLIN, GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### James C. Rudd and Wife *v.*J. F. Kimbly, et al.

U sury — Forfeiture.

Chapter 60 of the General Statutes, § 4, art. 2, provides that where usury is intentionally charged, the whole of the interest is forfeited.

Penalty for Exacting Usurious Interest.

The party desiring to have interest forfeited where usury is charged, must aver affirmatively that the illegal interest was intentionally charged and must sustain his averment hy proof.

APPEAL FROM DAYIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

November 3, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

Section 4, Art. 2, Chap. 60, Gen. Stats., provides that if any person shall intentionally charge a greater rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of money than is authorized by said article, the whole interest shall be forfeited.

*791The party who desires the benefit of this forfeiture must ask for it. He must aver affirmatively that the illegal interest was intentionally charged, and an issue of fact may be raised upon the question of intention. The court will not assume that illegal interest was intentionally charged, and then upon its own motion enforce a forfeiture in favor of a party not asking for any such relief.

The chancellor, having no legal right to render a judgment for usurious interest, will purge a claim sued on, when it appears upon its face to embrace usury. But he will not, unless the pleadings require it, inquire as to the propriety of inflicting a penalty upon the creditor. When this cause returns to the circuit court, application upon the part of the appellants for leave to plead further will be addressed to the sound legal discretion of the chancellor, and this court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion, by directing specifically the steps he should allow the parties to take in the way of further preparation.

Kimbly’s branch of the case was ready for hearing when the final judgment, fixing the amount of the claim for which Mrs. Rudd’s land is bound to him, was rendered. The bank’s case was also ready for hearing. The reversal of the judgment in favor of the bank renders necessary the reversal of the judgment in favor of Kimbly, and compels him to await the action of the chancellor in the enforcement of the bank’s mortgage. But as Mrs. Rudd withdrew her answer, and as there is now no issue of fact pending between her and Kimbly, we do not think that equity practice requires that the questions settled shall be opened in order first to let Mrs. Rudd answer, and then to make preparation to sustain her defense.

Petitions in each of these cases *overruled.*
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1617 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to add physical therapists 

to the list of providers allowed to utilize locum tenens arrangements 

under Medicare. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2023 

Mr. BILIRAKIS (for himself, Mr. TONKO, Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, Ms. 

DELBENE, Mr. ARMSTRONG, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. GRIFFITH, Mr. SOTO, 

Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. LATURNER, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. 

WESTERMAN, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. BOST, Mr. POCAN, Mr. MANN, Mr. 

NEGUSE, Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, Mr. 

FLEISCHMANN, Mr. COHEN, Mr. VAN DREW, and Mr. RUPPERSBERGER) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and 

Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to add 

physical therapists to the list of providers allowed to 

utilize locum tenens arrangements under Medicare. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prevent Interruptions 

5 in Physical Therapy Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1617 IH

1 SEC. 2. ALLOWING PHYSICAL THERAPISTS TO UTILIZE 

2 LOCUM TENENS ARRANGEMENTS UNDER 

3 MEDICARE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The first sentence of section 

5 1842(b)(6) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

6 1395u(b)(6)) is amended by striking ‘‘, and (J)’’ and all 

7 that follows through ‘‘physicians’ services furnished by 

8 physicians.’’ and inserting ‘‘, and (J) in the case of out9 patient physical therapy services furnished by physical 

10 therapists, subparagraph (D) of this sentence shall apply 

11 to such services and therapists in the same manner as 

12 such subparagraph applies to physicians’ services fur13 nished by physicians.’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

15 subsection (a) shall apply to items and services furnished 

16 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Real Estate  Fund
XVIII Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB  for
the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date hereof  (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
XVIII, Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership, and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
XVIII,  Inc.,  each  certify, pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  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 Partnership.


                      /s/ Robert P Johnson
                          Robert P. Johnson, President
                          AEI Fund Management XVIII, Inc.
                          Managing General Partner
                          May 5, 2006



                      /s/ Patrick W Keene
                          Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                          AEI Fund Management XVIII, Inc.
                          Managing General Partner
                          May 5, 2006
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# DATES AND TIMES:

Friday, December 5, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

# PLACE:

                        Via Teleconference (Public access to hear the teleconference will be at 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., in the Benjamin Franklin Room, or live via audio webcast at                         *http://about.usps.com/​news/​electronic-press-kits/​bog/​welcome.htm.*)                    

# STATUS:

Friday, December 5, at 2:30 p.m.—Open; Friday, December 5, at 2:45 p.m.—Closed

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 

*Friday, December 5, at 2:30 p.m. (Open)*

1. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meetings.

2. Approval of the FY2014 10K and Financial Statements.

3. Approval of the Annual Report and Comprehensive Statement.

*Friday, December 5, at 2:45 p.m. (Closed)*

1. Strategic Issues.

2. Pricing.

3. Governors' Executive Session—Discussion of prior agenda items and Board Governance.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Julie S. Moore, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone: (202) 268-4800.

Julie S. Moore,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-28198 Filed 11-25-14; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4890 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4890

               For the relief of Roger Paul Robert Kozik.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 21, 2004

Mr. Davis of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
               For the relief of Roger Paul Robert Kozik.

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

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF CERTAIN NATURALIZATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ROGER PAUL 
              ROBERT KOZIK.

    (a) English Language Requirement.--Notwithstanding his inability to 
satisfy the requirements of section 312(a)(1) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1423(a)(1)), relating to knowledge and 
understanding of the English language, Roger Paul Robert Kozik shall be 
deemed eligible for naturalization upon the filing of the appropriate 
application if otherwise qualified under such Act.
    (b) Civics Requirement.--Roger Paul Robert Kozik may satisfy the 
requirements of section 312(a)(2) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1423(a)(2)) by 
demonstrating in his native language the knowledge and understanding 
described in such section.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for naturalization is filed 
with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
1

Filed 10/29/13 In re U.M. CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re U.M., a Person Coming Under the

Juvenile Court Law.

U.M.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

ALAMEDA,

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest. A138813

(Alameda County

Super. Ct. No. SJ10014653)

Respondent court declared U.M. a ward because of his habitual truancy (Welf. &

Inst. Code, § 601, subd. (b)). Matters did not improve, and on Friday, April 19, 2013, the

court ordered the ward “remanded .

. . to do an in

- custody WETA [Weekend Training

Academy]” for the weekend about to commence. On May 31, 2013, the ward filed this

petition for an extraordinary writ “directing a nd prohibiting respondent court from

conducting any further proceedings with respect to this matter.” The basis for the

petition was that respondent court could not remand him for contempt unless it compli ed

the procedures specified in the Code of Civil P rocedure.

During the pendency of this matter, an authoritative answer to the substantive

issued was issued by Division Three of this District. Respondent court is now aware that2

the civil contempt procedures are to be followed. ( In re M.R . (2013)

220 Ca l.App.4th 49.) However, the “matter” of the petition, the order for the weekend

remand in April, is long past. Thus “it is impossible for this court to afford .

. . relief.”

( Id . at p. 56.) Because the matter is obviously moot at this time, the appropr iate response

is to deny the petition. ( Gridley v. Gridley (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1562, 1588; In re

Jessica K . (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315

- 1316; 8 Witkin, Cal. Procedure

(5th ed. 2008) Extraordinary Writs, § 148, p. 1047.)

The order to show cause h eretofore issued is discharged as improvidently granted.

The petition is denied.

_________________________ Richman, J.

We concur:

_________________________ Kline, P.J.

_________________________ Brick, J. *

* Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
11466.

#### Adams *v.*The State.

Luke, J.

The conviction of the defendant in this case was authorized. The charge of the court gave the defendant the benefit of every legal right, and his conviction can not, by this court, be held to have been *400improper. It was not error, for any reason assigned, to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Decided June 15, 1920.

Conviction of receiving stolen goods; from Bibb superior court — Judge Mathews. March 22, 1920.

*John R. Cooper, W. O. Cooper Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Charles H. Garrett, solicitor-general,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*