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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 4:20-cv-10049-BECERRA

CONSENT CASE

MICK CHILI,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R.C. MILLER BUILDERS, INC.,

Defendants. 

_____________________________/ 

ORDER APPROVING FLSA SETTLEMENT AND CLOSING CASE

THIS CAUSE came before the Court following a Settlement Conference held before the 

undersigned on August 19, 2020. This action involves claims brought by Plaintiff for alleged 

violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. (“FLSA”). ECF No. [1]. At 

the Settlement Conference, the Parties reached a resolution of this matter and placed the material 

terms of that resolution on the record.

In reviewing a settlement of an FLSA private claim, a court must “scrutiniz[e] the 

settlement for fairness,” and determine that the settlement is a “fair and reasonable resolution of a 

bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.” Lynn’s Food Stores v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 

1353–55 (11th Cir. 1982). A settlement entered in an adversarial context where both sides are 

represented by counsel throughout litigation “is more likely to reflect a reasonable compromise of 

disputed issues.” Id. at 1354. The district court may approve the settlement in order to promote 

the policy of encouraging settlements of litigation. Id.

The Court finds that the settlement here represents a genuine compromise of a bona fide 

dispute. Defendants, who have denied liability, have agreed to pay Plaintiff more than they believe 

Plaintiff is due under the law. Both sides have agreed to settle because of reasonable strategic and 

Case 4:20-cv-10049-JB Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2020 Page 1 of 2
financial considerations. The Court also notes that given the nature of the litigation and the 

pleadings that were filed, the attorneys’ fees award is reasonable. In addition, the settlement is 

reasonable not just when viewed in light of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants (and Defendants’ 

defenses to those claims), but also in light of the amount that Plaintiff and his counsel will each 

receive. The Court also finds that the settlement here occurred in an adversarial context and that 

there are genuine coverage and computation issues in dispute. The Court further finds that the 

settlement reached by the parties represents a reasonable compromise by both sides and is fair and 

reasonable. 

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Parties’ Settlement Agreement is APPROVED. 

It is further 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this matter is hereby dismissed with prejudice and 

all pending motions are denied as moot, subject to the Court’s retention of jurisdiction to enforce 

the Settlement Agreement, as set forth above in this Order. It is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE this case. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, FL on this 24rd day of August, 2020. 

___________________________

JACQUELINE BECERRA

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:20-cv-10049-JB Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2020 Page 2 of 2
### §5124. Registration by dealers

Every dealer who is subject to the recordkeeping requirements under section 5121 or 5122 shall register with the Secretary such dealer's name or style, place of residence, trade or business, and the place where such trade or business is to be carried on. In the case of a firm or company, the names of the several persons constituting the same, and the places of residence, shall be so registered.

(Added Pub. L. 109–59, title XI, §11125(b)(8), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1955.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5124 was renumbered section 5122 of this title.

Another prior section 5124, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 622, related to recordkeeping requirements of retail dealers in liquors or beer, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.

A prior section 5125, added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1345, set out cross references, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 109–59, title XI, §11125(a)(1)(D), (c), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1953, 1957, effective July 1, 2008, but inapplicable to taxes imposed for periods before such date.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective July 1, 2008, but inapplicable to taxes imposed for periods before such date, see section 11125(c) of Pub. L. 109–59, set out as an Effective Date of 2005 Amendment note under section 5002 of this title.
### §883a. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 92–586, §2, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1295, which related to payments to members of the Osage Tribe, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
[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.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Need to know[electronic resource].**�
 
SuDoc:Y 3.C 83/2:2 N 28
ItemNumber: 1089-Q-02 (online)
CGPsystem Number: 000578406- lincoln_poster_100.jpglincoln_poster_300.jpglincoln_poster_8x11.jpg
EXHIBIT 8

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 30-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 1 of 144
### §5385. Specially sweetened natural wines

#### (a) Definition

Specially sweetened natural wine is the product made by adding to natural wine of the winemaker's own production a sufficient quantity of pure dry sugar, or juice or concentrated juice from the same kind of fruit, separately or in combination, to produce a finished product having a total solids content in excess of 17 percent by weight and an alcoholic content of not more than 14 percent by volume, and shall include extra sweet kosher wine and similarly heavily sweetened wines.

#### (b) Cellar treatment

Specially sweetened natural wines may be blended with each other, or with natural wine or heavy bodied blending wine in the further production of specially sweetened natural wine only, if the wines so blended are made from the same kind of fruit. Wines produced under this section may be cellar treated under the provisions of section 5382(a) and (c). Wine spirits may not be added to specially sweetened natural wine.

(Added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1386; amended Pub. L. 89–44, title VIII, §806(c)(4), June 21, 1965, 79 Stat. 164; Pub. L. 90–619, §§3(b), 4, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1237.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5385, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 671, consisted of provisions similar to those comprising this section, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.

#### Amendments

1968—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 90–619, §3(b), substituted "not more than 14 percent" for "less than 14 percent".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 90–619, §4, authorized cellar treatment of specially sweetened natural wines, special natural wines, and agricultural wines.

1965—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 89–44 substituted "total solids content in excess of 17" for "sugar solids content in excess of 15".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1968 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 90–619 effective on first day of first month which begins 90 days or more after Oct. 22, 1968, see section 6 of Pub. L. 90–619, set out as a note under section 5373 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1965 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 89–44 effective Jan. 1, 1966, see section 806(d)(2) of Pub. L. 89–44, set out as a note under section 5383 of this title.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4118 

To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide support to university 

law school programs that are designed to provide legal assistance to 

veterans, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2015 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide 

support to university law school programs that are designed to provide legal assistance to veterans, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Veterans Legal Sup5 port Act of 2015’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4118 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS SUPPORT 

2 FOR UNIVERSITY LEGAL CLINICS THAT AS3 SIST VETERANS. 

4 (a) SUPPORT AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary of Vet5 erans Affairs may provide support to one or more univer6 sity law school programs that are designed to provide legal 

7 assistance to veterans. 

8 (b) ELIGIBLE PROGRAMS.—Programs of university 

9 law schools which may receive support under subsection 

10 (a) may include programs that assist veterans with— 

11 (1) filing and appealing claims for benefits 

12 under laws administered by the Secretary; and 

13 (2) such other civil, criminal, and family legal 

14 matters as the Secretary considers appropriate. 

15 (c) FINANCIAL SUPPORT.— 

16 (1) IN GENERAL.—The support provided a pro17 gram under subsection (a) may include financial 

18 support of the program. 

19 (2) LIMITATION ON AMOUNT.—The total 

20 amount of financial support provided under sub21 section (a) in any fiscal year may not exceed 

22 $1,000,000. 

23 (3) FUNDING.—Amounts for financial support 

24 under subsection (a) shall be derived from amounts 

25 appropriated or otherwise made available to the 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4118 IH

1 Medical Services account of the Department of Vet2 erans Affairs. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 -75.5 -75.0 39.5 40.0



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/19 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 19 Jul 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SC OTTIE B . LAY, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. GILL, W arde n, R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-15190

D.C . No. 1:12-c v-01250-JLT M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Je nnife r L. Thurston, M a gistra te Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d M ay

13, 2014 *** B e fore : C LIFTON, B EA, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Fe de ra l prisone r Sc o ttie B . La y a p pe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt de ny ing his 28 U.S.C . § 2241 ha be a s pe t ition. W e have jurisdic tion



# FIL ED MAY28 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

rtie s c onse nte d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra te judge . Se e 28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

*** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wthe de nia l of a se c tion 2241 pe tition denovo, se e R e y nolds v . Thomas , 603 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th C ir. 2010), abrogate d on othe r grounds by Se tse r v . Unite d State s , 132 S. C t. 1463 (2012), a n d we a ffirm . Lay c o nte n ds tha

t he is e ntitle d to c re dit towa rd his fe de ra l se nte nc e for the tim e he spe nt in fe de ra l c ustody pursua nt to a writ of ha

b e a s c orpus a d prose q ue ndum . The argum e nt is unpersua s ive be c a u se he re m a ine d subje c t

to the sta te ’ s jurisdic tion during the tim e he spe nt in fe de ra l c ustody pursua nt to thewrit. Se e Tay lor v . Re n o , 164 F.3d 440, 445 (9th C i r. 1998). There c ord re fle c ts tha t the c re d its e arne d during tha

t pe riod we re a

pplie d to La

y ’ s sta te se nte n c e , and the re fore the y

c annot be c re d ite d towa

rds his fe de ra l se nte nc e . Se e 18 U.S.C . § 3585(b); Alle n v . C

rabtre e , 153 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th C ir. 1998) (se c tion 3585(b) disa llows double

c re diting for time se rve d). Lay a l so c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d whe n it he ld his ha be a s c orpus pe tition to the

“ high sta nda rd a p plie d to le ga l findings of la wy e rs.” The re c ord doe s not support this c onte ntion. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 5 1 9 0 2
§ 3436.1-2 Federal coal deposits subject to lease by exchange. The lease offered by the Secretary in exchange for existing coal leases shall be for Federal coal deposits determined to be acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing pursuant to § 3420.1-5 or § 3420.2-3 of this title. ( a ) Any person meeting the requirements of § 3436.1-1(a) of this title may apply for a lease exchange. No special form of application is required.
( b ) The Secretary shall evaluate each exchange request to determine whether the proponent is qualified and whether the exchange serves the public interest. The exchange shall be processed in accordance with the procedures in subpart 3435 of this title for other lease and lease interest exchanges.
( c ) After the Secretary and the exchange proponent have agreed to terms pursuant to § 3435.3-3 of this title, the Secretary may elect to consider the exchange proposal in conjunction with the activity planning process for the coal production region in which the lands proposed to be leased are located pursuant to § 3420.3 of this title. If the Secretary elects to process the exchange proposal in this manner, the tracts identified for use in the lease exchange shall be: ( 1 ) Delineated for analysis pursuant to § 3420.3-3 of this title;
( 2 ) Ranked as having high desirability pursuant to § 3420.3-4(a) of this title; and
( 3 ) Selected for inclusion for analysis purposes in alternative proposed lease sale schedules pursuant to § 3420.3-4(c) of this title. Such tracts shall then be the subject of environmental analysis, public comment and consultation pursuant to §§ 3420.3 and 3420.4 of this title.
( d ) If the Secretary elects to process the exchange proposal independently of the activity planning process, the Secretary shall consider the environmental and resource information acquired during the land use planning process and found in the most recent regional environmental impact statement completed under the Federal coal management program. An environmental assessment or environmental impact statement shall be prepared on the proposed exchange prior to the public hearings and consultation required by §§ 3435.3-5 through 3435.3-7 of this title.
( e ) In determining under § 3435.3-4 of this title the estimated value of the lease or preference right lease application to be relinquished, the Secretary shall proceed as though there were no prohibitions on surface mining operations on the lands covered by the lease or preference right lease application.
( f ) The exchange proponent shall bear all administrative costs of the exchange, including the cost of establishing the value of each lease involved in the exchange, if the exchange is completed.
[47 FR 33145, July 30, 1982, as amended at 50 FR 42023, Oct. 17, 1985]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCosmic ray positron research and silicon track detector developmentThe purpose was to conduct research on: (1) position sensing detector systems, particularly those based upon silicon detectors, for use in future balloon and satellite experiments; and (2) positrons, electrons, proton, anti-protons, and helium particles as measured by the NASA NMSU Balloon Magnet Facility.Document ID19910018745Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsJones, W. Vernon*(Louisiana State Univ. Baton Rouge, LA, United States)*Wefel, John P.*(Louisiana State Univ. Baton Rouge, LA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1991Subject CategorySpace RadiationReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-187708NAS 1.26:187708Accession Number91N28059Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAGW-1247Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910018745.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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO.; et al Case No.: 20-CV-22044-JEM

Plaintiffs,

v.

MANUEL V. FEIJOO, MANUEL V. FEIJOO, M.D., P.A., 

WE CARE MEDICAL SERVICES, INC, MANUEL 

MARTINEZ VARELA, TONY NGUYEN, D.O.; NEW LIFE 

CLINICAL SERVICES, INC, ALEAN MACHADO,

JOSE ESTEVEZ, YOANDRA RODRIGUEZ, ACCIDENT 

REHAB ASSC. INC, d/b/a AMERICAN MEDICAL & REHAB 

CENTER, ALEJANDRO VAZQUEZ, MARIA VAZQUEZ, 

ERICK SALADO, M.D., MIAMI MEDICAL GROUP, INC, 

JUAN JIMENEZ, GRACIELA JIMENEZ, JOSE MARQUEZ, 

M.D., MARIA NODARSE, D.C., YARA VAZQUEZ and HAI 

UZAN

Defendants.

/

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION TO 

DISMISS

Defendants, WE CARE MEDICAL SERVICES, INC, and MANUEL MARTINEZ 

VARELA, by and through its undersigned counsel, and pursuant to S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1A(j), moves 

this Honorable Court for an extension of time within which to file its Reply to Plaintiff’s Response

to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and would state as follows:

1. The reply is due on July 29, 2020.

2. Due to other commitments undersigned needs additional time in order to adequately

prepare a reply to the response to the Motion to Dismiss, and asks this Court for nine (9) additional days 

in which to do so.

3. Defendantsrespectfully request a nine (9) day extension of time, up to and including

August 7, 2020, within which to file their reply brief.

4. Plaintiff’s counsel was contacted and does not object to the extension of time.

Case 1:20-cv-22044-JEM Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 1 of 2
5. This request for an extension of time is not for the purpose of delay but for the 

reasons above set forth.

WHEREFORE, WE CARE MEDICAL SERVICES, INC, and MANUEL MARTINEZ 

VARELA, respectfully request an extension of time until August 7, 2020, within which to 

file its reply.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 29, 2020, I have filed the foregoing document with the 

Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system and that a copy was electronically served upon all counsel of 

record, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other

authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices 

of Electronic Filing

LAW OFFICES OF CARLOS CRUANES, P.A.

815 N.W. 57th Avenue, Suite 401

Miami, Florida 33126

Telephone: (786) 378-8189

Facsimile: (305) 631-1816

By: ________/S/_____________

Carlos Cruanes

FBN: 0121940

Case 1:20-cv-22044-JEM Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 2 of 2
§ 4.1270 Petition for discretionary review of a proposed civil penalty. ( a ) Any party may petition the Board to review an order or decision by an administrative law judge disposing of a civil penalty proceeding under § 4.1150.
( b ) A petition under this section shall be filed on or before 30 days from the date of receipt of the order or decision sought to be reviewed and the time for filing may not be extended.
( c ) A petitioner under this section shall list the alleged errors of the administrative law judge and shall attach a copy of the order or decision sought to be reviewed.
( d ) Any party may file with the Board a response to the petition for review within 10 days of receipt of a copy of such petition.
( e ) Not later than 30 days from the filing of a petition under this section, the Board shall grant or deny the petition in whole or in part.
( f ) If the petition is granted, the rules in §§ 4.1273 through 4.1275 are applicable, and the Board must use the point system and conversion table contained in 30 CFR part 723 or 845 in recalculating assessments. However, the Board has the same authority to waive the civil penalty formula as that granted to administrative law judges in § 4.1157(b)(1). If the petition is denied, the decision of the administrative law judge is final for the Department, subject to § 4.5.
[43 FR 34386, Aug. 3, 1978, as amended at 67 FR 61511, Oct. 1, 2002; 75 FR 64669, Oct. 20, 2010]
### §552. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act June 1, 1938, ch. 310, §2, 52 Stat. 605, which provided for monetary payments to members of the Klamath Tribe who had not received an allotment of land, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
### §677g. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, acts Aug. 27, 1954, ch. 1009, §8, 68 Stat. 869; Aug. 2, 1956, ch. 880, §2, 70 Stat. 936, which related to membership rolls of full-blood and mixed-blood members, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
### §609. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 90–278, §1, Mar. 30, 1968, 82 Stat. 69, which related to actions by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Yakima Tribes of Indians of the Yakima Reservation to determine title to judgment fund, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
#### Angela Maria DOZIER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Paula SIMMONS, Work Release Supervisor; Angie Edmonds, Store Manager, McDonalds; McDonald’s Restaurant, # 4138, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 05-7123.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 8, 2006.

Decided: Feb. 27, 2006.

Angela Maria Dozier, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Angela Maria Dozier seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing two defendants from her civil action and proceeding with the remaining defendant. This court *161may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Dozier seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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*
### [PART III—REPEALED]
### §556. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act June 1, 1938, ch. 310, §6, 52 Stat. 606, which provided for reversion of interest in property upon the death of an enrolled member without heirs or devisees, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.