alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[108th Congress Public Law 477]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ477.108]

[[Page 118 STAT. 3903]]

Public Law 108-477
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 4985 Moorhead Avenue in Boulder, Colorado, as the ``Donald G. Brotzman 
     Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Dec. 21, 2004 -  [H.R. 5370]>> 

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4985 
Moorhead Avenue in Boulder, Colorado, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Donald G. Brotzman Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Donald G. Brotzman Post 
Office Building''.

    Approved December 21, 2004.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5370:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):
            Nov. 19, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 7, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### Brannen *v.*Brannen.

Holden, J.

Where the vendor sues the purchaser on notes given by the latter to the former for the purchase-money of land, it is error to strike a plea of the defendant, alleging that at the time of the contract of purchase the vendor misrepresented to him the location of one of the boundary lines of the tract purchased, whereby he failed to get a portion of the land which he contracted to buy, and “said misrepresentation was made by the plaintiff to the defendant knowingly and willfully and for the purpose of deceiving the defendant, and did actually deceive him to his damage” in a named sum. *Elder*v. *Allison,*45 *Ga.*13; *Smith*v. *Kirkpatrick,*79 *Ga.*410 (7 S. E. 258) ; *Folsom*v. *Howell,*94 *Ga.*112 (21 S. E. 136) ; *James*v. *Elliott,*44 *Ga.*237.

*(a)*The court committed no error in striking a plea of the defendant, to the effect that the vendor misrepresented to him the character and value of the timber on the land, when, as far as disclosed by the plea, the defendant had sufficient opportunity to inspect the same and was not prevented from so doing by any artifice or fraud of the vendor, but relied *591upon the latter’s representations as to these matters. *Thompson*v. *Boyce,*84 *Ga.*497 (11 S. E. *353); Tindall*v. *Harkinson,*19 *Ga.*448; *Stone*v. *Moore,*75 *Ga.*565; *Martin*v. *Harwell,*115 *Ga.*156 (41 S. E. 686).

January 11, 1911.

Complaint. Before Judge Rawlings. Bulloch superior court. October 25, 1909.

*Anderson & Speer*and *R. B. Strange,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. F. Brannen,*contra.

(6) It appearing that the contract of sale was in writing, it was proper to strike from the plea seeking an abatement of the purchase-price that portion wherein it was alleged that the vendor “represented” to the defendant “that at any time the defendant became dissatisfied with his purchase, that if he did not find the tract of land to be as he had represented it to be, that he would take it back, cancel his notes, return to him the money that he had paid on it, and pay him for the improvements made thereon,” as such alleged parol agreement would vary the terms of a complete and' unambiguous written contract, as far as disclosed by the pleadings. *Forsyth Mfg. Co.*v. *Castlen,*112 *Ga.*199 (6), 210 (37 S. E. 485, 81 Am. St. R. 28).

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, C-. J., absent.*
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 September 30, 2015 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 5, 2023 |  |  | /s/ Joshua Ralston                      | 
|------------------- |  |  | --------------------------------------- | 
|                    |  |  | Joshua Ralston, Chief Financial Officer |
### §7121. Closing agreements

#### (a) Authorization

The Secretary is authorized to enter into an agreement in writing with any person relating to the liability of such person (or of the person or estate for whom he acts) in respect of any internal revenue tax for any taxable period.

#### (b) Finality

If such agreement is approved by the Secretary (within such time as may be stated in such agreement, or later agreed to) such agreement shall be final and conclusive, and, except upon a showing of fraud or malfeasance, or misrepresentation of a material fact—

(1) the case shall not be reopened as to the matters agreed upon or the agreement modified by any officer, employee, or agent of the United States, and

(2) in any suit, action, or proceeding, such agreement, or any determination, assessment, collection, payment, abatement, refund, or credit made in accordance therewith, shall not be annulled, modified, set aside, or disregarded.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 849; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary".
Exhibit 32

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 E Med Future, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending March 31, 2008 (the Report) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the undersigned, being the Chief Financial Officer and Interim President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certifies, 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 § 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Donald Sullivan                  
|DONALD SULLIVAN                      
|CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND INTERIM  
|PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Date: May 15, 2008
Larva Pupa

CICLO DE VIDA

GUSANO COGOLLERO

Las pupas pasan el invierno 

en el suelo y emergen como 

polillas

Macho adulto

Las orugas de color verdeazul o rojo parduzco crecen 

hasta 1.7 pulgadas de largo

Departamento 

de Agricultura 

de los Estados Unidos

Hembra adulta

El color de las alas varía entre 

el color marrón-amarillento, 

amarillo claro o marrón claro Tiene alas de color 

marrón-anaranjado

Servicio de Inspección de Salud Agropecuaria

Sus alas extendidas pueden alcanzar medidas

entre 1.4 y 1.6 pulgadas
EL DAÑO QUE CAUSA

El gusano cogollero puede causar graves pérdidas en 

las cosechas, especialmente en el tomate, el

maíz, la soja y el algodón. En el tomate, atacan las 

frutas jóvenes, por lo que éstas caen de la

planta. En el maíz, invaden la espiga y comen los 

granos en desarrollo. En el algodón, pueden

atacar las cápsulas jóvenes y maduras y también

comer las hojas y los brotes de las plantas de algodón. 

QUÉ PUEDE HACER • No lleve o envíe por correo frutas, verduras frescas 

o plantas hospederas del gusano a los Estados Unidos, salvo que éstas hayan sido inspeccionadas por 

algún inspector de agricultura. 

• Permita que inspectores agrícolas autorizados

tengan acceso a su propiedad. Éstos inspeccionarán 

el área y colocarán estratégicamente trampas para 

detectar los gusanos cogolleros.

• Informe de cualquier avistamiento de esta plaga en 

HungryPests.com.

Para obtener más información, visite: 

HUNGRYPESTS.COM

El Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos es un proveedor y empleador

que ofrece igualdad de oportunidades. 

 Programa de ayuda no. 2125-S, gusano cogollero • Emitido en abril de 2015 

Fotos: Todas las imágenes son cortesía de Bugwood.org.

Larva alimentándose de una 

mazorca de maíz

QUÉBUSCAR

• polillas y larvas adultas en las 

flores, frutas u hojas de las 

plantas hospederas 

• agujeros hechos en la base 

de los capullos, las frutas o las 

cápsulas 

• otras señales de daño en hojas y 

brotes

• frutas jóvenes o cápsulas que 

caen prematuramente
#### § 428.3 Definitions used in this part.

*Custom service provider* means an individual or legal entity that provides one specialized, farm-related service that a farm owner, lessee, sublessee, or farm operator employs for agreed-upon payments. This includes, for example, crop dusters, custom harvesters, grain haulers, and any other such services.

*Farm operator* means an individual or legal entity other than the owner, lessee, or sublessee that performs any portion of the farming operation. This includes farm managers, but does not include spouses, minor children, employees for whom the employer pays social security taxes, or custom service providers.

*We* or *us* means the Bureau of Reclamation.

*You* means a farm operator.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 30, 2013

d0923 

# Order

Clerk September 30, 2013

146379(80)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146379

COA: 304159

Wayne CC: 10

- 013518

- FH

FRED ROBERT RUSSELL III,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 5, 2013

order is considered, and it is D ENIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
#### George Roger SIEGEL, individually on behalf of all the People of the United States, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE UNIFORM DIVISION, et al., Appellees.

No. 05-5042.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

July 28, 2005.

Rehearing En Banc Denied Nov. 21, 2005.

George Roger Siegel, Washington, DC, pro se.

R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and RANDOLPH and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and supplement thereto filed by appellant. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed November 19, 2004 and January 7, 2005 be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the complaint because the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General may not be controlled through mandamus. *See Powell v. Katzenbach,*359 F.2d 234, 234 (D.C.Cir. 1965). Furthermore, a writ of mandamus is “an extraordinary remedy, to be reserved for extraordinary situations.” *Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp.,*485 U.S. 271, 289, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988). Mandamus does not lie unless the petitioner’s right to relief is “clear and indisputable,” and there is “no other adequate means” by which the petitioner may attain the relief he seeks. *See In re Sealed Case,*151 F.3d 1059, 1063 (D.C.Cir.1998). Appellant has failed to demonstrate his entitlement to the extraordinary writ. *See Cobell v. Norton,*334 F.3d 1128, 1137 (D.C.Cir.2003).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
### §882. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 91–404, §1, Sept. 19, 1970, 84 Stat. 845, which related to disposition of the judgment fund of the Sac and Fox Tribes, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         2235371
<SECURITIES>                                   7789371
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3247442
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    1017998
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              15826556
<PP&E>                                        11071616
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                41530631
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         26565975
<BONDS>                                         931571
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         66807
<OTHER-SE>                                    13488440
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  41530631
<SALES>                                       81038867
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              81038867
<CGS>                                         32984590
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 66080765
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              245423
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               15268702
<INCOME-TAX>                                   6320046
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            8948656
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   8948656
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .43
        

</TABLE>
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsComparative morphology of configurations with reduced part count derived from the octahedral-tetrahedral trussMorphology (the study of structure and form) of the octahedral-tetrahedral (octet) truss is described. Both the geometry and symmetry of the octet truss are considered. Morphological techniques based on symmetry operations are presented which enable the derivation of reduced-part-count truss configurations from the octet truss by removing struts and nodes. These techniques are unique because their Morphological origination and they allow for the systematic generation and analysis of a large variety of structures. Methods for easily determining the part count and redundancy of infinite truss configurations are presented. Nine examples of truss configurations obtained by applying the derivation techniques are considered. These configurations are structurally stable while at the same time exhibiting significant reductions in part count. Some practical and analytical considerations, such as structural performance, regarding the example reduced-part-count truss geometries are briefly discussed.Document ID19910009855Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsLalvani, Haresh*(George Washington Univ. Hampton, VA., United States)*Collins, Timothy J.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateFebruary 1, 1991Subject CategorySpacecraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:102768NASA-TM-102768Accession Number91N19168Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 506-43-41-02Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910009855.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

CASE NO. 0:20-CV-61007-SINGHAL/VALLE

SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT d/b/a

MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, on behalf of 

itself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

ELAP SERVICES, LLC, a Pennsylvania limited 

liability company, and GROUP & PENSION 

ADMINISTRATORS, INC., a Texas corporation,

 Defendants.

______________________________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE 

LIMITATION FOR ITS MOTION FOR CLASS 

CERTIFICATION AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Plaintiff South Broward Hospital District d/b/a Memorial Healthcare System 

(“Memorial”), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby moves the Court for leave to exceed 

the page limitation for Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and Incorporated Memorandum 

of Law, and states as follows: 

1. Memorial will file its Motion for Class Certification and Incorporated 

Memorandum of Law on January 13, 2023. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c)(2), the page limitation 

for Plaintiff’s motion and Defendants’ responses is twenty pages. See S.D. Fla. L. Rule 7.1(c)(2).

2. Due to the number and complexity of the issues involved, Memorial’s counsel

anticipates that they will require approximately twenty-five pages to brief its class certification

motion. Accordingly, Memorial’s counsel respectfully requests leave to exceed the Court’s page 

limit by five pages. A proposed order is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

1443648

3. Memorial’s counsel and counsel for both Defendants have conferred in good 

faith, and neither Defendant opposes the relief sought with this Motion. 

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Memorial’s counsel respectfully requests that 

the Court enter an order granting Memorial leave to exceed the page limitations for the class 

certification motion and incorporated memorandum of law by five pages. 

Respectfully submitted this 11th day of January, 2023. 

/s/Benjamin J. Widlanski

Benjamin J. Widlanski., Esq.

bwidlanski@kttlaw.com

Fla. Bar No. 1010644

Gail McQuilkin, Esq.

gam@kttlaw.com

Fla. Bar No. 969338

Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq. 

tjl@kttlaw.com

Fla. Bar No. 99519

Michael Lorigas, Esq.

mlorigas@kttlaw.com

Fla. Bar No. 123597

KOZYAK TROPIN &

THROCKMORTON LLP

2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: (305) 372-1800 

Counsel for Plaintiff

/s/ Douglas A. Wolfe

Douglas A. Wolfe, Esq.

doug@wolfepincavage.com

Fla. Bar No. 28671

Danya J. Pincavage, Esq.

danya@wolfepincavage.com

Fla. Bar No. 14616

Hana A. Aryan, Esq. 

Hana.aryan@wolfepincavage.com

Fla. Bar No. 1003617

WOLFE | PINCAVAGE

7800 SW 57th Avenue, Suite 217

Miami, Florida 33143

Telephone: (786) 409-0800

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 0:20-cv-61007-AHS Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant. Thaddeus R. Lide, Jr., et al., Respondents.

Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Dowling, Harris and MeCurn, JJ.
§ 2920.2-5 Proposal review. ( a ) A land use proposal shall, upon submission, be reviewed to determine if the public lands covered by the proposal are appropriate for the proposed land use and if the proposal is otherwise legal.
( b ) If the proposal is found to be appropriate for further consideration, the authorized officer shall examine the proposal and make one of the following determinations: ( 1 ) The proposed land use is in conformance with the appropriate land use plan and can be approved;
( 2 ) The proposed land use has not been addressed in an existing land use plan and shall be addressed in accordance with the procedure in part 1600 of this title;
( 3 ) The proposed land use is in an area not covered in an existing land use plan and shall be processed in accordance with the procedure in § 1601.8 of this title; or
( 4 ) The proposed land use is not in conformance with the approved land use plan. This determination may be appealed under 43 CFR 4.400 for review of the question of conformance with the land use plan.
( c ) ( 1 ) If a proposed land use does not meet the requirements of this subpart or is found not to be in conformance with the land use plan, the authorized officer shall so advise the proponent and shall provide a written explanation of the reasons the proposed use does not meet the requirements of this subpart and/or is not in conformance with an existing land use plan.
( 2 ) Where a proposed land use is determined not to be in conformance with an approved land use plan, with the land use plan, the authorized officer may consider the proposal for land use as an application to amend or revise the existing land use plan under part 1600 of this title.
#### § 4.473 Time and place of hearing; notice; intervenors.

At least 30 days before the date set by the administrative law judge the authorized officer will notify the appellant of the time and place of the hearing within or near the district. Any other person who in the opinion of the authorized officer may be directly affected by the decision on appeal will also be notified of the hearing; such person may himself appear at the hearing, or by attorney, and upon a proper showing of interest, may be recognized by the administrative law judge as an intervenor in the appeal.

[44 FR 41790, July 18, 1979. Redesignated at 68 FR 68770, Dec. 10, 2003]
#### § 3604.27 What rights does a free use permit give me against other users of the land?

Permits that BLM issues under this subpart constitute a superior right to remove the materials in accordance with the permit terms and provisions, as against any claim to or entry of the lands made after the date BLM designated the tract for mineral materials disposal. *See* § 3602.12.