alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 329.2 Eligibility. To be eligible for naturalization under section 329(a) of the Act, an applicant must establish that he or she: ( a ) Has served honorably in the Armed Forces of the United States as a member of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve or in an active duty status in the Armed Forces of the United States during: ( 1 ) World War I;
( 2 ) The period beginning on September 1, 1939 and ending on December 31, 1946;
( 3 ) The period beginning on June 25, 1950 and ending on July 1, 1955;
( 4 ) The period beginning on February 28, 1961 and ending on October 15, 1978; or
( 5 ) Any other period as may be designated by the President in an Executive Order pursuant to section 329(a) of the Act;
( b ) If separated, has been separated honorably from service in the Armed Forces of the United States under paragraph (a) of this section;
( c ) Satisfies the permanent residence requirement in one of the following ways: ( 1 ) Any time after enlistment or induction into the Armed Forces of the United States, the applicant was lawfully admitted to the United States as a permanent resident; or
( 2 ) At the time of enlistment or induction, the applicant was physically present in the geographical territory of the United States, the Canal Zone, American Samoa, Midway Island (prior to August 21, 1959), or Swain's Island, or in the ports, harbors, bays, enclosed sea areas, or the three-mile territorial sea along the coasts of these land areas, whether or not the applicant has been lawfully admitted to the United States as a permanent resident;
( d ) Has been, for at least one year prior to filing the application for naturalization, and continues to be, of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and favorably disposed toward the good order and happiness of the United States; and
( e ) Has complied with all other requirements for naturalization as provided in part 316 of this chapter, except that: ( 1 ) The applicant may be of any age;
( 2 ) The applicant is not required to satisfy the residence requirements under § 316.2 (a)(3) through (a)(6) of this chapter; and
( 3 ) The applicant may be naturalized even if an outstanding notice to appear pursuant to 8 CFR part 239 (including a charging document issued to commence proceedings under sections 236 or 242 of the Act prior to April 1, 1997) exists.
[56 FR 50493, Oct. 7, 1991, as amended at 58 FR 49913, Sept. 24, 1993; 62 FR 10395, Mar. 6, 1997; 75 FR 2787, Jan. 19, 2010]
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 23, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-1980

Lower Tribunal No. 15-13

________________

City of Miami Beach, Florida, etc.,

Petitioner,

vs.

John Deutzman,

Respondent.

A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Appellate

Division, Gill S. Freeman, Bertila Soto, Thomas J. Rebull, Judges.

Raul J. Aguila, City Attorney, and Aleksandr Boksner, First Assistant City

Attorney, for petitioner.

John Deutzman, in proper person.

Before SHEPHERD, EMAS, and LOGUE, JJ.

LOGUE, J.

The City of Miami Beach seeks certiorari review of an order by the circuit

court in its appellate capacity, which awarded attorneys’ fees to Respondent.1 The
order was the first ruling on the question of attorneys’ fees. Properly viewed, our

proceeding is not the second, but rather the first tier of appellate review. See

Ramirez v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 67 So. 3d 1174, 1175-76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)

(“Because the order denying appellate fees was the first ruling on the question, we

do not think that, properly viewed, this proceeding is the second, but rather the first

tier of appellate review . . . .”). We have jurisdiction. See Mejia v. United Auto.

Ins. Co., 83 So. 3d 897, 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (using first-tier certiorari review

to quash an appellate circuit court’s order granting attorneys’ fees).

Attorneys’ fees cannot be awarded as a matter of equity. Attorney’s Title

Ins. Fund, Inc. v. Landa-Posada, 984 So. 2d 641, 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

“Generally, a court may only award attorney’s fees when such fees are expressly

provided for by statute, rule, or contract.” Bane v. Bane, 775 So. 2d 938, 940 (Fla.

2000) (quotation and citation omitted). Attorneys’ fees may also be awarded in

appropriate circumstances as a sanction. Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So. 2d 221,

227 (Fla. 2002); Landa-Posada, 984 So. 2d at 643.

In this case, the circuit court did not state a basis for awarding attorneys’

fees. Nor did Respondent in his motion for fees. Without any basis for awarding

the fees, the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law. See

State, Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Trauth, 971 So. 2d 906, 908

1 The City does not seek certiorari review of the portion of the order awarding

costs.

2
(Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“An award of appellate attorneys’ fees must be supported by

a particular contractual, statutory, or other substantive basis. Because the circuit

court appellate panel failed to state any basis for awarding attorneys’ fees, other

than [Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure] 9.400, the attorneys’ fee award cannot

stand.”) (internal citation omitted). We therefore grant the petition and quash the

portion of the order awarding attorneys’ fees.

Petition granted; order quashed in part.

3
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Peter Greco et al., Respondents, against Queenside Hills Realty Co., Inc., Defendant, and State Insurance Fund, Defendant-Appellant. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

All concur.
EXHIBIT 21.1





IMPERIAL INDUSTRIES, INC.



Subsidiaries of the Registrant



December 31, 2007







|                                          |  |                           
|----------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------
|                                          |  | Incorporate 
under laws of
|                                          |  |                           
|DFH, Inc.                                 |  | Florida                   
|                                          |  |                           
|Premix-Marbletite Manufacturing Co., Inc. |  | Florida                   
|                                          |  |                           
|Just-Rite Supply, Inc.                    |  | Florida                   
|                                          |  |                           
|Triple I Leasing, Inc. (inactive)         |  | Florida
# Official Journal L 2/2007

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 2 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 505 January 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 2

English edition

Legislation

Volume 505 January 2007

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | | Commission Regulation (EC) No 3/2007 of 4 January 2007 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 1 |
| | * | Regulation (EC) No 4/2007 of the European Central Bank of 14 December 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 2423/2001 (ECB/2001/13) concerning the consolidated balance sheet of the monetary financial institutions sector (ECB/2006/20) | 3 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

REGULATIONS

Commission Regulation (EC) No 3/2007 of 4 January 2007 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

*

Regulation (EC) No 4/2007 of the European Central Bank of 14 December 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 2423/2001 (ECB/2001/13) concerning the consolidated balance sheet of the monetary financial institutions sector (ECB/2006/20)

(ECB/2006/20)

3

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
# C_2006033EN.01000901.xml

| 9.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 33/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4028 — Flaga/Progas/JV)

(2006/C 33/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 26 January 2006, 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:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/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 under document number 32006M4028. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4028. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
Summary: Mining Company Removed Coal From Unleased Land 

Report Date: May 1, 2020 Report Number: 20-0127 

The OIG investigated allegations that Bronco Utah Operations, LLC (Bronco), a coal mining 

company based in Utah, improperly removed Federal coal without a lease. 

We determined that Bronco trespassed into unleased Federal coal deposits that resulted in a loss 

of public revenues. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) granted Bronco a right-of-way that 

allowed the company to tunnel through Federal land to continue the company’s coal operations 

designated by its mining plan. As the company tunneled through the right-of-way, it removed 

Federal coal deposits from areas outside the boundaries of the right-of-way, resulting in the 

removal of unleased deposits. As a result of the trespass, Bronco paid the Federal Government 

$92,099.44, a value based on an estimated bid for the coal removed and the mineral royalties 

owed if a Federal lease had been issued. 

This is a summary of an investigative report we issued to the Directors of the BLM and the 

Office of Natural Resources Revenue. 

Office of Investigations | Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of the Interior | Washington, DC
|  |  | [if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have  reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection  (FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the  FDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's  suite of cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S.  Government Publications.
***Title:  Geology of the Michaud and Pocatello quadrangles, Bannock and Power  Counties, Idaho : stratigraphy and structure of an area at the  southeastern margin of the Snake River Plain, including a subdivision of  upper Precambrain rocks
***Report  |  Plates
***SuDocs******No. I 19.3:1400 | Item No.  0620 | System No. 001000121***
A service of the Superintendent of Documents,  U.S. Government Printing Office..

 

 
 
 
Last updated:  September 24,  2016  Page Name:  http://permanent.fdlp.gov/
 ****** |
|--|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# C_2016410EN.01001801.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Sun Cali v EUIPO — Abercrombie & Fitch Europe (SUN CALI)

(Case T-512/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark SUN CALI - Earlier national figurative mark CaLi co - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Representation before the Board of Appeal - Real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the European Union - Legal persons with economic connections - Article 92(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 410/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sun Cali, Inc. (Denver, Colorado, United States) (represented by: C. Thomas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Abercrombie & Fitch Europe SA (Mendrisio, Switzerland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 June 2015 (Joined Cases R 1260/2014-5 and R 1281/2014-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Abercrombie & Fitch Europe and Sun Cali.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sun Cali, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sun Cali, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1657

SALAME M. AMR, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY; EDDIE N. MOORE, JR.; NASSER 

RASHIDI; LARRY C. BROWN; KEITH M. WILLIAMSON, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:07-cv-00628-REP) 

Submitted: October 28, 2009 Decided: November 16, 2009 

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Salame M. Amr, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory Clayton Fleming, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Salame M. Amr seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his motion to supplement the record for the appeal 

to this court of his underlying civil case. Because our 

decision in that appeal has issued, Amr v. Virginia State Univ., 

No. 09-1184, 2009 WL 2400275 (4th Cir. Aug. 6, 2009) 

(unpublished), this appeal is now moot. See Incumaa v. Ozmint, 

507 F.3d 281, 286 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth the principles 

of appellate mootness). Therefore, we dismiss Amr’s appeal as 

moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
# Trading Suspensions

The latest Trading Suspensions from the Securities and Exchange Commission

- Agri-Fintech Holdings, Inc. Agri-Fintech Holdings, Inc.
- Tingo Group, Inc. Tingo Group, Inc.
- Green Automotive Company Green Automotive Company
- TOP Financial Group Limited TOP Financial Group Limited
- Viabuilt Ventures, Inc., Viabuilt Ventures, Inc.,
- Digatrade Financial Corporation Digatrade Financial Corporation
- Instadose Pharma Corp. Instadose Pharma Corp.
- Vista International Technologies Inc. Vista International Technologies Inc.
- Yus International Group, Ltd. Yus International Group, Ltd.
- Sports Field Holdings, Inc. Sports Field Holdings, Inc.
- Skye Life Ventures Ltd. Skye Life Ventures Ltd.
- Real Goods Solar, Inc. Real Goods Solar, Inc.
- Stealth Technologies, Inc. Stealth Technologies, Inc.
- MyDx, Inc. MyDx, Inc.
- Online Disruptive Technologies, Inc. Online Disruptive Technologies, Inc.
- Medifirst Solutions, Inc. Medifirst Solutions, Inc.
- Ngen Technologies Holdings Corp. Ngen Technologies Holdings Corp.
- Intelligent Highway Solutions, Inc. Intelligent Highway Solutions, Inc.
- GelTech Solutions, Inc. GelTech Solutions, Inc.
- LevelBlox, Inc. LevelBlox, Inc.
- Citadel Exploration, Inc. Citadel Exploration, Inc.
- Consumer Capital Group, Inc. Consumer Capital Group, Inc.
- Incoming, Inc. Incoming, Inc.
- Brightlane Corp. Brightlane Corp.
- Calmare Therapeutics Incorporated Calmare Therapeutics Incorporated
#### Elaine BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John MARTINEZ, Chairman, New York City Housing Authority, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 01-9138.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 14, 2002.

Elaine Brown, N.Y., NY, pro se.

Byron S. Menegakis, Staff Att’y, N.Y., NY, for Appellee.

Present FEINBERG, KEARSE and CARDAMONE, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and was argued by plaintiff *pro se*and by counsel for defendant.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Trager’s Memorandum and Order dated August 24, 2001. Although plaintiff apparently was initially classified incorrectly by defendant with respect to her request for housing assistance, neither the priorities established by defendant nor the reclassification of plaintiff in accordance with those priorities violated plaintiffs rights under federal law.

We have considered all of plaintiffs contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
(No. 77-CC-1245

#### Charles Washington, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed September 28, 1977.*

Per Curiam.

Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institution, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that his property was lost, misplaced, stolen or destroyed while he was imprisoned, and that the loss of his property was proximately caused by the negligence of employees of the State of Illinois.

In *Bargas v. State, 32*Ill.Ct.Cl__, this Court held that the State of Illinois does not owe a duty to inmates of its penal institutions to safeguard property which inmates keep in their cells. In the companion case of *Doubling v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.1,*we further held that only where the State takes actual physical possession *235of the property of an inmate, as during the course of his transfer between penal institutions, does a duty arise to use reasonable care in protecting the inmate’s property.

The complaint in this action does not allege that Claimant’s property was delivered to agents of the State, but rather that the property disappeared or was damaged in Claimant’s cell. Under our reasoning in *Bargas v. State, supra,*and *Doubling v. State, supra,*the complaint herein fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

It is therefore ordered that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 12,823

 12,846

 12,423

 10,917

 10,141

 10,158

 11,006

 11,101

 11,026

 11,193

 11,785

 13,028

 15,211

 15,766

 14,621

 14,578

 14,128

 12,522

 10,371

 11,095

 11,696

 12,964

 13,515

 14,381

 14,184

 14,486

 15,070

 15,914

 15,799

 14,826

 14,075

 3,857

 3,981

 4,359

 4,392

 4,728

 4,504

 5,311

 5,180

 3,765

 8,577

 3,971

 4,289

 5,113

 5,714

 5,822

 6,198

 6,578

 6,064

 5,131

 5,091

 5,434

 5,180

 4,804

 4,686

 4,436

 4,384

 4,042

 4,364

 5,141

 6,245

 6,423

 7,810

 7,739

 7,910

 7,542

 7,415

 7,026

 7,305

 7,437

 7,320

 10,062

 7,617

 8,962

 9,665

 9,936

 9,879

 10,345

 10,073

 8,993

 7,979

 7,708

 7,691

 7,939

 8,143

 8,722

 8,831

 8,693

 8,359

 8,840

 9,342

 10,176

 9,855

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2008 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: September 2, 2008

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

COLLINSVILLE BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4983 

To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient 

clinic in Gilbert, Arizona, as the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Alexander W. Conrad 

Veterans Affairs Health Care Clinic’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 5, 2019 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. GALLEGO, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. STANTON, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mrs. LESKO, Mrs. KIRKPATRICK, Mr. O’HALLERAN, and Mr. 

SCHWEIKERT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs communitybased outpatient clinic in Gilbert, Arizona, as the ‘‘Staff 

Sergeant Alexander W. Conrad Veterans Affairs Health 

Care Clinic’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress finds the following: 

5 (1) Staff Sergeant Alexander W. Conrad of 

6 Chandler, Arizona, joined the United States Army 

7 on June 1, 2010. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4983 IH

1 (2) Staff Sergeant Conrad’s decorated service 

2 includes two deployments to Afghanistan in support 

3 of Operation Enduring Freedom. 

4 (3) Staff Sergeant Conrad subsequently de5 ployed to Africa in support of Operation Octave 

6 Shield, while assigned to 1st Battalion, 3rd Special 

7 Forces Group, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, as a 

8 Human Intelligence Noncommissioned Officer. 

9 (4) On June 8, 2018, Staff Sergeant Conrad 

10 died in Somalia from injuries sustained from indi11 rect enemy fire. 

12 (5) Staff Sergeant Conrad was posthumously 

13 awarded the Purple Heart, Bronze Star with Valor, 

14 and Meritorious Service Medal. 

15 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF STAFF SERGEANT ALEXANDER W. 

16 CONRAD VETERANS AFFAIRS HEALTH CARE 

17 CLINIC. 

18 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Southeast Veterans Affairs 

19 Health Care Clinic located at 3285 South Val Vista Drive, 

20 Gilbert, Arizona, shall after the date of the enactment of 

21 this Act be known and designated as the ‘‘Staff Sergeant 

22 Alexander W. Conrad Veterans Affairs Health Care Clin23 ic’’. 

24 (b) REFERENCE.—Any reference in a law, regulation, 

25 map, document, paper, or other record of the United 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 4983 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Alex3 ander W. Conrad Veterans Affairs Health Care Clinic’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS