alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 4.407 Motions. ( a ) Any motion filed with the Board must provide a concise statement of the reasons supporting the motion.
( b ) When a person or party files a motion, other than a motion for an extension of time under § 4.405, any party has 15 days after service of the motion to file a written response, unless a provision of this subpart or the Board by order provides otherwise.
( c ) The Board will rule on any motion as expeditiously as possible.
( d ) The requirements of § 4.401(d) apply to a motion.
[75 FR 64665, Oct. 20, 2010]
#### Rosi Saggione, Appellant, v. Maurice Mayer et al., Respondents.

Present — ■ Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ.
M&I FY 2010 Sch B-2 Incremental Revenue

08/19/2011

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

SCHEDULE OF M&I INCREMENTAL REVENUE BY CONTRACTOR

2010 ACCOUNTINGS

A B C D E F G H I JK 

Conveyance Pumping Capital Direct San 

A/F Conveyance Tracy Pumping Plant Dos Pumping Luis Other Inter

Facility/Contractor/Transferor Transferee Transferred Capital Corning FK/Madera Others O'Neill Amigos Capital Drain Costs M&

Ref <Sch B-2> 

Delta Mendota Canal

City of Tracy Del Puerto WD (AG) 650 City of Tracy Westlands WD (AG) 2,000 

Friant-Kern Canal

City of Fresno Westlands WD 21,250 - $ - $ - $ - $ 8,712.50 $ 14,450.00 $ 30,600.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 

Total - $ - $ - $ - $ 8,712.50 $ 14,450.00 $ 30,600.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 

Transferred to Irrigation

City of Tracy Del Puerto WD (AG) 

City of Tracy Westlands WD (AG) 

City of Fresno Westlands WD - $ - $ - $ - $ 8,712.50 $ 14,450.00 $ 30,600.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 

Adjusted Total - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 

Incremental Rates for 2010 Transfers
United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Amparo Benitez, on behalf of A.E., 

Plaintiff,

v.

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 20-22089-Civ-Scola

Order Adopting the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations

This matter was referred to United States Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin 

G. Torres for a report and recommendation on the Plaintiff’s unopposed motion 

for attorney’s fees. On March 14, 2022, Judge Torres issued a report, 

recommending that the Court grant the motion and award the Plaintiff

attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,732. (Report & Recommendations, ECF 

No. 26.) No objections have been filed and the time to object has passed.

Having considered Judge Torres’s report, the record, and the relevant legal 

authorities, this Court finds Judge Torres’s report and recommendation cogent

and compelling.

The Court affirms and adopts Judge Torres’s report and 

recommendation (ECF No. 26). The Court grants the Plaintiff’s motion for 

attorneys’ fees (ECF No. 25). Consistent with the report, the Court awards 

$5,732 in attorney’s fees to the Plaintiff unless a federal debt is otherwise 

owed.

Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on March 29, 2022.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-22089-RNS Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2022 Page 1 of 1
#### § 4300.22 What fees must I pay?

You must pay a $10 filing fee with each application. No grazing fee will be charged.
#### § 3902.29 Other parties in interest.

If there is more than one party in interest in an application for a lease, include with the application the names of all other parties who hold or will hold any interest in the application or in the lease. All interested parties who wish to hold an interest in a lease must provide to the BLM the information required by this subpart to qualify to hold a lease interest.
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


CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF TEHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, David
Bakhshi, 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 of
Latin American Telecommunications Venture Company-LATVCO on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of Latin American
Telecommunications Venture Company-LATVCO.





By: /s/
David Bakhshi


Name:
David Bakhshi


Title:
Chief Executive Officer





October
9, 2009
§ 404.19 What requirements must be met before I can request assistance to conduct a feasibility study? All of the following requirements must be met before you can request assistance to conduct a feasibility study: ( a ) An appraisal investigation must be completed, with or without assistance from Reclamation;
( b ) Reclamation must have reviewed any appraisal investigation prepared without its assistance;
( c ) Reclamation must have prepared an appraisal report evaluating the appraisal investigation; and,
( d ) The appraisal report must include a recommendation by Reclamation, if appropriate, that a feasibility study should be conducted, as described in § 404.45.
# Fourth C ourt of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

April 16, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00191

- CV

Noe GARCIA , Rosa Garcia, Maria G. Ruel, Unknown Heirs of Conrado Ruben Garcia, Gloria G. Valdez, Eddie Garcia, Saul Flores, Stella Shull, Joel Flores, Hector Flores, and Oscar Flores, et al.

, Appellants

v.

Anna Maria SALAZAR and Carlos Abel Salazar,

Appellees

From the 218th Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13

- 09

- 00220

- CVL Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The court reporter identified in appellants ’ docketing statement as the reporter responsible for preparing the reporter’s record in this appeal has filed a notification of late record stating he did not make a record o f any hearing on any of the dates provided by appellants. It is therefore ORDERED that the appellate record is complete, and appellants’ brief must be filed no later than thirty days from the date of this order.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 16th day of April, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
#### § 4.817 Notice of opportunity to request a hearing and response thereto.

A notice of opportunity to request a hearing shall set a date not less than 20 days from service of said notice within which the applicant or recipient may file a request for a hearing, or may waive a hearing and submit written information and argument for the record, in which case, the applicant or recipient shall have the right to further participate in the proceeding. When the applicant or recipient elects to file a request for a hearing, a time shall be set for the hearing at a date not less than 20 days from the date applicant or recipient is notified of the date set for the hearing. Failure of the applicant or recipient to request a hearing or to appear at the date set shall be deemed a waiver of the right to a hearing, under section 602 of the Act and the regulations thereunder and consent to the making of a decision on such information as is available which may be presented for the record.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

C.A. No. 1:20-cv-22051-DPG 

SISVEL INTERNATIONAL S.A., 

3G LICENSING S.A., and SISVEL S.p.A., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

HMD AMERICA, INC., 

and HMD GLOBAL OY, 

Defendants.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

NOTICE OF FILING DECLARATION OF REGIS BATES IN SUPPORT OF 

PLAINTIFFS’ SISVEL INTERNATIONAL S.A., 3G LICENSING S.A., AND SISVEL 

S.P.A.’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS 

Plaintiffs, Sisvel International S.A., 3G Licensing S.A., and Sisvel S.p.A., through its 

undersigned counsel, hereby file the declaration of Regis Bates in Support Of Plaintiffs’ Sisvel 

International S.A., 3g Licensing S.A., and Sisvel S.P.A.’S Claim Constructions. 

Dated: March 1, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Jorge Espinosa 

Jorge Espinosa, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 779032 

jorge.espinosa@gray-robinson.com 

Francesca Russo, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 174912 

francesca.russo@gray-robinson.com 

Robert R. Jimenez, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 72020 

robert.jimenez@gray-robinson.com 

GRAY ROBINSON, P.A. 

333 S.E. 2nd Ave., Suite 300 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: 305-416-6880 

Fax: 305-416-6887 

Case 1:20-cv-22051-DPG Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2021 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

OF COUNSEL: 

Neil A. Benchell (admitted pro hac vice) 

nbenchell@devlinlawfirm.com 

DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC 

1526 Gilpin Avenue 

Wilmington, DE 19806 

Tel: 302-449-9010 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sisvel International S.A, 

3G Licensing S.A., and Sisvel S.p.A. 

Case 1:20-cv-22051-DPG Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2021 Page 2 of 2
#### Scotty Lynn TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Matt KEIL; John C. Goodson; The Law Firm of Keil & Goodson, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-41651.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

*219Scott Lynn Taylor, Kenedy, TX, pro se.

George L. McWilliams, Sean Fletcher Rommel, Leisa Beaty Pearlman, Patton, Haltom, Roberts, McWilliams & Greer, Texarkana, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Scotty Lynn Taylor, Texas prisoner #817710, appeals the magistrate judge’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the appellees in this legal malpractice action brought pursuant to diversity jurisdiction. At issue is the defendants’ representation of Taylor in connection with a solicitation-of-capital-murder charge that was dismissed in exchange for Taylor’s agreement to a civil forfeiture of property seized during a prior drug offense. Taylor argues that he introduced “a substantial amount of evidence” which created genuine issues with regard to the issues of causation and injury. He also argues that a jury should have been allowed to resolve various factual issues, including his motive in agreeing to the civil forfeiture and the appellees’ motives in securing the dismissal of the solicitation charge.

This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards as the district court. *Cates v. Creamer,*431 F.3d 456, 460 (5th Cir.2005). A motion for summary judgment will be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

An attorney malpractice action in Texas is based on negligence. *Cosgrove v. Grimes,*774 S.W.2d 662, 664 (Tex.1989). A plaintiff asserting attorney malpractice must establish that “(1) the attorney owed the plaintiff a duty, (2) the attorney breached that duty, (3) the breach proximately caused the plaintiffs injuries, and (4) damages occurred.” *Peeler v. Hughes & Luce,*909 S.W.2d 494, 496 (Tex.1995). In order to show causation, the plaintiff must, in essence, “prove ‘a suit within a suit’ by demonstrating that he would have prevailed in the underlying action but for his attorney’s negligence.” *Schlager v. Clements,*939 S.W.2d 183, 186-87 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, writ denied).

*220Taylor cannot show that the defendants proximately caused him harm in connection with the solicitation proceeding because the charge was dismissed with prejudice. *See id.*Accordingly, Taylor’s averments regarding the motives and intent of the parties do not undermine the magistrate judge’s grant of summary judgment. The magistrate judge’s grant of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is affirmed. *See Cates,*431 F.3d at 460; Rule 56(c).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsApplication of laminar flow control to supersonic transport configurationsThe feasibility and impact of implementing a laminar flow control system on a supersonic transport configuration were investigated. A hybrid laminar flow control scheme consisting of suction controlled and natural laminar flow was developed for a double-delta type wing planform. The required suction flow rates were determined from boundary layer stability analyses using representative wing pressure distributions. A preliminary design of structural modifications needed to accommodate suction through a perforated titanium skin was carried out together with the ducting and systems needed to collect, compress and discharge the suction air. The benefits of reduced aerodynamic drag were weighed against the weight, volume and power requirement penalties of suction system installation in a mission performance and sizing program to assess the net benefits. The study showed a feasibility of achieving significant laminarization of the wing surface by use of a hybrid scheme, leading to an 8.2 percent reduction in the cruise drag. This resulted in an 8.5 percent reduction in the maximum takeoff weight and a 12 percent reduction in the fuel burn after the inclusion of the LFC system installation penalties. Several research needs were identified for a resolution of aerodynamics, structural and systems issues before these potential benefits could be realized in a practical system.Document ID19900016628Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsParikh, P. G.*(Boeing Commercial Airplane Co. Seattle, WA, United States)*Nagel, A. L.*(Boeing Commercial Airplane Co. Seattle, WA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 1990Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:181917NASA-CR-181917Accession Number90N25944Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-60-41-01CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-15325Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900016628.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 3410.3-4 Bonds. ( a ) Bonding provisions in subpart 3474 of this chapter apply to this subpart.
( b ) Prior to issuing an exploration license, the authorized officer shall ensure that the amount of the bond to be furnished is sufficient: ( 1 ) To assure compliance with the terms and conditions of the exploration license and exploration plan; and
( 2 ) In the absence of an agreement between the exploration licensee and the surface owner so providing, to assure compensation for damages to surface improvements made by surface owners where an exploration license embraces such lands. In no event shall the amount of such bond be less than $5,000.
( c ) Upon completion of exploration and reclamation activities that are in compliance with the terms and conditions of the exploration license, the exploration plan and the regulations, or upon discontinuance of exploration operations and completion of needed reclamation to the satisfaction of the authorized officer, and where appropriate, the surface management agency, the authorized officer shall terminate the period of liability of the bond.
( d ) Where the surface of the land being explored is privately owned, the authorized officer shall have the authority to terminate or adjust the period of liability and/or the amount of liability under the bond. The authorized officer shall provide, 30 days prior to the effective date of termination of the period of liability under the bond, a notice of termination to enable the surface owner to inspect the property and notify the authorized officer, in writing, of any deficiencies in reclamation. Should the licensee and any surface owner be unable to agree on the adequacy of the reclamation, the authorized officer shall make the final determination.
[44 FR 42613, July 19, 1979, as amended at 47 FR 33135, July 30, 1982; 48 FR 37655, Aug. 19, 1983; 50 FR 8626, Mar. 4, 1985]
§ 38.2 Computation of hourly, daily, weekly, and biweekly adjusted rates of pay. When it is necessary to convert the adjusted annual rate of pay to an hourly, daily, weekly, or biweekly rate, the following methods apply: ( a ) To derive an hourly rate, divide the adjusted annual rate of pay by 2,087 and round to the nearest cent, counting one-half cent and over as a whole cent;
( b ) To derive a daily rate, multiply the hourly rate by the number of daily hours of service required;
( c ) To derive a weekly or biweekly rate, multiply the hourly rate by 40 or 80, as the case may be.
#### Dennis C. Stoeber, Plaintiff-Appellant, *v.*The Town of Stookey *et al.,*Defendants-Appellees.

(No. 73-328;

Fifth District

June 28, 1974.

Bock and Stenger, of Belleville (Ralph T. Stenger, of counsel), for appellant.

John M. Ferguson, of Belleville, for appellees.

Mr. JUSTICE CREBS

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of St. Clair County dismissing plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

*253Plaintiffs verified complaint sought to force the defendant to grant access to the sanitary sewer system for an eight-space mobile home park development under the same classification as a single residential or a single business customer. Defendant contended that the ordinances covering sewer extensions for newly developed subdivisions or commercial projects applied.

The real point in dispute is the interpretation of the Town of Stookey’s Ordinance No. 161. If it applies to the plaintiff, he is required to provide extensions to the sewer system rather than lateral connections which he seeks to make. The trial court held that plaintiff came under the terms of Ordinance No. 161. We agree.

This ordinance defines a subdeveloper as the owner, promoter, lessee, tenant and builder of any improvements to real estate and further provides that the subdeveloper of any subdivision, shopping center, commercial center or industrial plant site shall before conveyance by him, or operation or occupancy by such subdivider or his agents or tenants, install the sewer extensions.

It is the contention of plaintiff that since mobile home parks are not named in the ordinance they are not included. We hold that it is covered both as a subdivision and as a commercial center.

Numerous other contentions are made in the briefs. We have considered them, but see no reason to refer to them in this opinion.

As a matter of law, plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought.

Judgment affirmed.

G. MORAN, P. J., and EBERSPACHER, J., concur.
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 Annual Report of Global Entertainment Holdings,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSBA for the year
ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), Terry Gabby, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the
      Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Global Entertainment Holdings, Inc., and will be retained by Global
Entertainment Holdings, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.




Date
      October 31, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Terry
      GabbyName Terry
      GabbyTitle Chief
      Financial Officer
#### § 3902.22 Where to file.

The lease application and qualification evidence must be filed in the proper BLM office (see subpart 1821 of part 1820 of this chapter).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-cv-22311-UU 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

 

E*HEDGE SECURITIES, INC., 

AND DEVON W. PARKS, 

 

 Defendants. 

 / 

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS FOR CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST 

E*HEDGE SECURITIES, INC.

 Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, files this Notice of Dismissal as to the Commission’s civil penalty claims against 

Defendant E*Hedge Securities, Inc. 

Dated: November 30, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

 By: s/Alise Johnson 

 Alise Johnson, Esq. 

 Senior Trial Counsel 

 Florida Bar No. 0003270 

 Direct Dial: (305) 982-6385 

 Email: johnsonali@sec.gov

 Lead Attorney To Be Noticed 

 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

 801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1950 

 Miami, Florida 33131 

 Telephone: (305) 982-6300 

 Facsimile: (305) 536-4154 

 

Case 1:20-cv-22311-CMA Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 1 of 2
 - 2 - 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 30, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. 

Alise Johnson 

 Alise Johnson, Esq. 

Case 1:20-cv-22311-CMA Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
        32.2
 
 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 Chancellor Group, Inc. (the "Company")
        on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alan M. Wright,
        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
        to the best of my knowledge: (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 result of operations of the Company.
  By:
              /s/
                Alan
                WrightAlan
                  M. Wright
                Chief
                  Financial Officer
 August
        14, 2007