alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3175.142 Required static tests. ( a ) *Instantaneous flow rate.* The instantaneous flow rates must meet the criteria in § 3175.141(d) for each test identified in Table 1 to this section, using the gas compositions identified in Table 2 to this section, as prescribed in Table 1 to this section.
( b ) *Sums and averages.* ( 1 ) Fixed input values from test 2 in Table 1 to this section must be applied for a period of at least 24 hours.
( 2 ) At the conclusion of the 24-hour period, the following hourly and daily values must meet the criteria in § 3175.141(d): ( i ) Volume;
( ii ) Integral value;
( iii ) Flow time;
( iv ) Average differential pressure;
( v ) Average static pressure; and
( vi ) Average flowing temperature.
( c ) *Other tests.* The following additional tests must be performed on the flow-computer software: ( 1 ) Each parameter of the configuration log must be changed to ensure the event log properly records the changes according to the variables listed in § 3175.104(c); and
( 2 ) Inputs simulating a 15 percent and 150 percent over-range of the differential and static-pressure transducer's calibrated span must be entered to verify that the over-range condition triggers an alarm or an entry in the event log.
#### § 3816.1 Mineral locations.

The Act of April 23, 1932 (47 Stat. 136; 43 U.S.C. 154), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior in his discretion to open to location, entry and patent under the general mining laws with reservation of rights, ways and easements, public lands of the United States which are known or believed to contain valuable deposits of minerals and which are withdrawn from development and acquisition because they are included within the limits of withdrawals made pursuant to section 3 of the reclamation Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388; 43 U.S.C. 416).
§ 3802.0-7 Scope. ( a ) These regulations apply to mining operations conducted under the United States mining laws, as they affect the resources and environment or wilderness suitability of lands under wilderness review.
( b ) These regulations apply to means of access across public land for the purpose of conducting operations under the U.S. mining laws.
§ 3175.93 Integration statements. An unedited integration statement must be retained and made available to the BLM upon request. The integration statement must contain the following information: ( a ) The information required in § 3170.7(g) of this part;
( b ) The name of the company performing the integration;
( c ) The month and year for which the integration statement applies;
( d ) Meter-tube inside diameter (inches);
( e ) The following primary device information, as applicable: ( i ) Orifice bore diameter (inches); or
( ii ) Beta or area ratio, discharge coefficient, and other information necessary to calculate the flow rate;
( f ) Relative density (specific gravity);
( g ) CO2 content (mole percent);
( h ) N2 content (mole percent);
( i ) Heating value calculated under § 3175.125 (Btu/standard cubic feet);
( j ) Atmospheric pressure or elevation at the FMP;
( k ) Pressure base;
( l ) Temperature base;
( m ) Static-pressure tap location (upstream or downstream);
( n ) Chart rotation (hours or days);
( o ) Differential-pressure bellows range (inches of water);
( p ) Static-pressure element range (psi); and
( q ) For each chart or day integrated: ( i ) The time and date on and time and date off;
( ii ) Average differential pressure (inches of water);
( iii ) Average static pressure;
( iv ) Static-pressure units of measure (psia or psig);
( v ) Average temperature ( °F);
( vi ) Integrator counts or extension;
( vii ) Hours of flow; and
( viii ) Volume (Mcf).
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2
February 21, 2005

Cooper Industries, Ltd.
600 Travis, Suite 5800
Houston, Texas 77002-1001

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of Cooper Industries, Ltd. (the "Company") and/or Cooper Industries,
Inc., as applicable, of the use of our name and the reference to an analysis,
with which our firm assisted, concerning the contingent liability exposure of
the Company for certain asbestos-related claims, under "Item 3. Legal
Proceedings" and "Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations - Critical Accounting Policies and
Estimates" included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2004, and in Note 16 to its consolidated financial statements
for the year ended December 31, 2004.

<TABLE>
<S>                 <C>
No. 2-33-14542      Form S-8 Registration Statement for Cooper Industries, Inc.
                    1989 Employee Stock Purchase Plan

No. 333-02847       Form S-8 Registration Statement for Cooper Industries, Inc.
                    Amended and Restated Directors Stock Plan

No. 333-120337      Form S-8 Registration Statement for Cooper Industries, Inc.
                    Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan

No. 333-24237       Form S-3D Registration Statement for Cooper Industries, Inc.
                    Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan

No. 333-101451      Form S-3D Registration Statement for Cooper Industries, Ltd.
                    Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan

No. 333-51439       Form S-8 Registration Statement for Cooper Industries, Inc.
                    Director's Retainer Fee Stock Plan

No. 333-51441       Form S-8 Registration Statement for Cooper Industries, Inc.
                    Amended and Restated Management Annual Incentive Plan

No. 333-37580       Form S-8 Registration Statement for Cooper (UK) Employee
                    Share Purchase Plan
</TABLE>

Sincerely,

/s/ Charles E. Bates, Ph.D.

President and Senior Partner
Bates White LLC
### §640d–18. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 93–531, §19, Dec. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 1721; Pub. L. 96–305, §8, July 8, 1980, 94 Stat. 932, which provided for a reduction of livestock within the joint use area, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
#### Lutz & Sheinkman, Respondent, v. Michael Roth et al., Copartners Doing Business under the Name of Associated Novelties Company, Appellants.

*809Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Van Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-60883-CIV-SINGHAL/Valle

KASHWISE GLOBAL FUNDING SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

RIOT BLOCKCHAIN, INC.,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation to the District Judge (DE [61]) issued on December 22, 2021. Therein, 

Magistrate Judge Valle considered Defendant’s Application to Tax Costs and Supporting 

Memorandum of Law (DE [53]) and recommends Defendant be awarded costs in the 

amount of $3,961.00 against Plaintiff.

Parties have fourteen days to file any objections to a magistrate judge’s factual 

findings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b). Here, neither side filed 

any such objections. With no objections filed, the Court’s review of the Report and 

Recommendation (DE [7]) is properly limited to a de novo review of only its legal 

conclusions. See Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. PharmaTech, LLC, 2019 

WL 4673739, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2019) (“Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, 

even in the absence of an objection.”). This Court has reviewed the entire file and record 

and has made a de novo review of the issues. No objections to the Report and 

Case 0:20-cv-60883-AHS Document 64 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/22/2022 Page 1 of 2
2

Recommendation (DE [61]) have been filed, thus, the Court reviews it for clear error. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation to the District Judge (DE [61]) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. 

Defendant’s Application to Tax Costs and Supporting Memorandum of Law (DE [53]) is 

GRANTED. Defendant RIOT BLOCKCHAIN, INC. is AWARDED total costs in the 

amount of $3,961.00, comprising $400 in filing fees and $3,561 in transcript fees. Plaintiff

KASHWISE GLOBAL FUNDING SOLUTIONS, INC. is ORDERED to pay Defendant 

RIOT BLOCKCHAIN, INC.’s total costs in the amount of $3,961.00.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 22nd day of

February 2022.

Copies furnished to counsel of record via CM/ECF

Case 0:20-cv-60883-AHS Document 64 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/22/2022 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Joshua Ralston, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
General Enterprise Ventures, Inc. for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2018 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of General Enterprise Ventures
Inc.





|Date: April 10, 2023 |  |  | /s/ Joshua Ralston                      | 
|-------------------- |  |  | --------------------------------------- | 
|                     |  |  | Joshua Ralston, Chief Financial Officer |
### §1300g–5. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 100–89, title I, §106, Aug. 18, 1987, 101 Stat. 668, which repealed the Tiwa Indians Act (Pub. L. 90–287, Apr. 12, 1968, 82 Stat. 93, providing the tribe's designation and transferring responsibility for the tribe to the State of Texas), was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

A LICIA ELENA FRANCO

, Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL DANIEL CINTRON

, Appellee.

No. 4D 2 02 3

- 1609

[ May 2, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County; Michele Towbin

- Singer, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE21

- 022590.

Lauren N. Peffer of L. Turner Law, P.A., Delray Beach, for appellant.

Kevin J. Guerreo and Michael A. Moreira of Warrior Law Group, PLLC,

Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, C ONNER and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 3175.94 Volume determination. ( a ) The volume for each chart integrated must be determined as follows: *V* = *IMV* × *IV* Where: V = reported volume, Mcf IMV = integral multiplier value, as calculated under this section IV = the integral value determined by the integration process (also known as the “extension,” “integrated extension,” and “integrator count”)
( 1 ) If the primary device is a flange-tapped orifice plate, a single IMV must be calculated for each chart or chart interval using the following equation: Where: Cd = discharge coefficient or flow coefficient, calculated under API 14.3.3 or AGA Report No. 3 (1985), Section 5 (incorporated by reference, see § 3175.30) β = Beta ratio Y = gas expansion factor, calculated under API 14.3.3, Subsection 5.6 or AGA Report No. 3 (1985), Section 5 (incorporated by reference, see § 3175.30) d = orifice diameter, in inches Zb = supercompressibility at base pressure and temperature Gr = relative density (specific gravity) Zf = supercompressibility at flowing pressure and temperature Tf = average flowing temperature, in degrees Rankine
( 2 ) For other types of primary devices, the IMV must be calculated using the equations and procedures recommended by the PMT and approved by the BLM, specific to the make, model, size, and area ratio of the primary device being used.
( 3 ) Variables that are functions of differential pressure, static pressure, or flowing temperature (e.g., Cd, Y, Zf) must use the average values of differential pressure, static pressure, and flowing temperature as determined from the integration statement and reported on the integration statement for the chart or chart interval integrated. The flowing temperature must be the average flowing temperature reported on the integration statement for the chart or chart interval being integrated.
( b ) Atmospheric pressure used to convert static pressure in psig to static pressure in psia must be determined under appendix A to this subpart.
#### § 3511.27 How do I renew my lease?

File an application at least 90 days before the lease term expires. No specific form is required. Send us 3 copies of your application together with the processing fee for lease renewal found in the fee schedule in § 3000.12 of this chapter and an advance rental payment of $1 per acre or fraction of an acre.

[64 FR 53536, Oct. 1, 1999, as amended at 70 FR 58878, Oct. 7, 2005]
§ 3809.202 Under what conditions will BLM defer to State regulation of operations? ( a ) *State request.* A State may request BLM enter into an agreement for State regulation of operations on public lands in place of BLM administration of some or all of the requirements of this subpart. The State must send the request to the BLM State Director with jurisdiction over public lands in the State.
( b ) *BLM review.* ( 1 ) When the State Director receives the State's request, he/she will notify the public and provide an opportunity for comment. The State Director will then review the request and determine whether the State's requirements are consistent with the requirements of this subpart, and whether the State has necessary legal authorities, resources, and funding for an agreement. The State requirements may be contained in laws, regulations, guidelines, policy manuals, and demonstrated permitting practices.
( 2 ) For the purposes of this subpart, BLM will determine consistency with the requirements of this subpart by comparing this subpart and State standards on a provision-by-provision basis to determine— ( i ) Whether non-numerical State standards are functionally equivalent to BLM counterparts; and
( ii ) Whether numerical State standards are the same as corresponding numerical BLM standards, except that State review and approval time frames do not have to be the same as the corresponding Federal time frames.
( 3 ) A State environmental protection standard that exceeds a corresponding Federal standard is consistent with the requirements of this subpart.
( c ) *State Director decision.* The BLM State Director will notify the State in writing of his/her decision regarding the State's request. The State Director will address whether the State requirements are consistent with the requirements of this subpart, and whether the State has necessary legal authorities, resources, and funding to implement any agreement. If BLM determines that the State's requirements are consistent with the requirements of this subpart and the State has the necessary legal authorities, resources, and funding, BLM must enter into an agreement with the State so that the State will regulate some or all of the operations on public lands, as described in the State request.
( d ) Appeal of State Director decision. The BLM State Director's decision will be a final decision of BLM and may be appealed to the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, but not to the Department of the Interior Office of Hearings and Appeals. The items you should include in the appeal are the same as the items you must include under § 3809.802.
[65 FR 70112, Nov. 21, 2000, as amended at 68 FR 32656, June 2, 2003]
### Kruger, Brett (OST)

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Nelson, Carl [CarI.Nelson@aa.comj Thursday, October 14, 2010 4:23 PM Kruger, Brett (OST) Wirick, Robert; Lundell, Linda (OST) :"n American Airlines (Chicago-Cozumel) (DOT-OST-2010-0247)'11 

# GCT

American Airlines hereby supplements its polling results letter ofOctober 6, 

### 2010 to state that Virgin America has been polled and does not objecttothe captioned application. Regards, Carl Nelson, 

### (202) 496-5647
#### § 3273.18 What facility operators must pay the annual site license rent?

If you are a lessee siting a utilization facility on your own lease, or a unit operator siting a utilization facility on leases committed to the unit, you are not required to pay rent. Only a facility operator who is not also a lessee or unit operator must pay rent.
## Subtitle A—Income Taxes

Chapter
1.
Normal taxes and surtaxes.
2.
Tax on self-employment income.
2A.
Unearned income Medicare contribution.
3.
Withholding of tax on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations.
4.
Taxes to enforce reporting on certain foreign accounts.
[5.
Repealed.]
6.
Consolidated returns.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2010**—Pub. L. 111–152, title I, §1402(a)(3), Mar. 30, 2010, 124 Stat. 1062, which directed amendment of the "table of chapters for subtitle A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986" by adding item for chapter 2A, was executed by adding item for chapter 2A to the table of chapters for this subtitle to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

Pub. L. 111–147, title V, §501(c)(8), Mar. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 106, which directed amendment of the "table of chapters of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986" by adding item for chapter 4 "at the end", was executed by adding item for chapter 4 after item for chapter 3 in the table of chapters for this subtitle to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

**1997**—Pub. L. 105–34, title XI, §1131(c)(4), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 980, struck out item for chapter 5 "Tax on transfers to avoid income tax".

**1990**—Pub. L. 101–508, title XI, §11801(b)(11), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–522, struck out item for chapter 4 "Rules applicable to recovery of excessive profits on government contracts".

**1984**—Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title IV, §474(r)(29)(D), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 844, struck out "and tax-free covenant bonds" at end of item for chapter 3.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CIV-60853-RAR

FEDIA SAMEDY, 

Plaintiff,

v.

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 

RESOURCES, INC.,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

ORDER REQUIRING REVISED VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT 

REGARDING INJURY-IN-FACT FOR ARTICLE III STANDING

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Affidavit of Fedia Samedy [ECF No. 22] 

(“Plaintiff’s Affidavit”), filed on July 23, 2020. On July 10, 2020, in light of the Eleventh Circuit’s 

decision in Trichell v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., No. 18-14144, 2020 WL 3634917 (11th Cir. 

July 6, 2020), the Court entered an Order Requiring Verified Affidavit Regarding Injury-In-Fact 

for Article III Standing [ECF No. 16] (“Order”). As discussed in the Order, Trichell held that to 

have standing to pursue claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. 

section 1692 et seq., a plaintiff must allege that he or she was in fact misled by the debt collection 

letter, not just that the letter creates a risk of misleading consumers in general. See Trichell, 2020 

WL 3634917 at *6-7. Trichell made clear that a risk of harm to a plaintiff that “dissipated before 

the complaint was filed” is insufficient to establish Article III standing. Id. at *8. Accordingly, 

the Order required Plaintiff to file a verified affidavit explaining in detail the concrete, 

particularized injury Plaintiff suffered as a result of receiving the allegedly misleading debt 

collection letter. 

Case 0:20-cv-60853-RAR Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2020 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Plaintiff’s Affidavit indicates that the debt collection letter “pushed [Plaintiff] over the 

edge,” Plaintiff’s “head started pounding,” Plaintiff “became nauseous,” and Plaintiff was 

“simultaneously angry and scared.” Plaintiff’s Affidavit ¶ 8. However, Plaintiff’s Affidavit fails 

to allege that Plaintiff was in fact misled by the debt collection letter and suffered a particularized, 

concrete injury that had not “dissipated before the complaint was filed.” Trichell, 2020 WL 

3634917 at *8. Plaintiff’s Affidavit is therefore insufficient to establish Article III standing under 

the standard set forth in Trichell. Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff shall file a revised verified affidavit on or 

before July 29, 2020 explaining in detail whether and how Plaintiff was misled by the debt 

collection letter. If the revised affidavit fails to satisfy the standard set forth in Trichell for 

establishing Article III standing in FDCPA cases, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint 

without further notice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 24th day of July, 2020.

_________________________________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 0:20-cv-60853-RAR Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2020 Page 2 of 2
PROPOSED ADDITION TO ARTICLE 8(g)

(Downey Brand Client Group)

Add the following sentence to the end of Article 8(g):

Contractor retains all rights to challenge the validity of Rates and Charges imposed pursuant to this Settlement Contract, including but not limited to operation and maintenance expenses and operation and maintenance deficits, in an appropriate administrative or judicial proceeding.
Exhibit 8

Subsidiaries of StealthGas Inc.

Access Consultants Co.

Alexis Shipholding S.A.

Aracruz Trading Ltd.

Atlas Investments S.A.

Aubine Services Ltd.

Balcan Profit Limited

Balkan Holding Inc.

Baroness Holdings Inc.

Cedric Finance Inc.

Celidon Investments Inc.

Continent Gas Inc.

Delora Trading Company

Drew International Inc.

East Propane Inc.

Empire Spirit Ltd.

Energetic Peninsula Limited

Evolution Crude Inc.

Fairdeal Enterprises Corp.

Floyd Properties Co.

Gaz de Brazil Inc.

Geneve Butane Inc.

Grazia Maritime Ltd.

Heather Trading S.A.

Iceland Limited

Independent Trader Ltd.

International Gases Inc.

Industrial Materials Inc.

Jungle Investment Limited

Kalinda Shipmanagement Ltd.

Leader Investments Inc.

Lpgone Ltd.

Lyonet Holdings Corp.

Matrix Gas Trading Ltd.

Melvyn Services Company

Neutron Marine Corp.

----

Northern Yield Shipping Limited

Ocean Blue Limited

Oswald Trading Limited

Oxford Gas Ltd.

Pacific Gases Ltd.

Petchem Trading Inc.

Quinta Trading Co.

Reina Properties Corp.

Sabrina Enterprises S.A.

Scope International Inc.

Semichlaus Exports Ltd.

Soleil Trust Inc.

Somer Shipmanagement S.A.

Transgalaxy Inc.

Triathlon Inc.

VCM Trading Ltd.

Ventspils Gases Ltd.

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 13

- 00247

- CR

Roderick SUTTON

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12

- 0275

- CR

The Honorable Charles Ramsay, Judge Presiding 1

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgments of the trial court are

MODIFIED to delete the assessment of $505.00 in attorney’s fees as costs and to reflect that the

sentences were imposed on April 3, 2013. The judgments are AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

SIGNED March 12, 2014.

_____________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

1 The Honorable W.C. Kirkendall denied the motion to suppress in the underlying cause. The Honorable Charles

Ramsay presided over the trial and signed the judgments.