alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 35.21 Discovery. ( a ) The following types of discovery are authorized: ( 1 ) Requests for production of documents for inspection and copying;
( 2 ) Requests for admissions of the authenticity of any relevant document or of the truth of any relevant fact;
( 3 ) Written interrogatories; and
( 4 ) Depositions.
( b ) For the purposes of this section and §§ 35.22 and 35.23 of this part, the term “documents” includes information, documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data and documentary evidence. Nothing contained herein shall be interpreted to require the creation of a document.
( c ) Unless mutually agreed to by the parties, discovery is available only as ordered by the ALJ. The ALJ shall regulate the timing of discovery.
( d ) *Motions for discovery.* ( 1 ) A party seeking discovery may file a motion with the ALJ. Such a motion shall be accompanied by a copy of the requested discovery, or in the case of depositions, a summary of the scope of the proposed deposition.
( 2 ) Within ten days of service, a party may file an opposition to the motion and/or a motion for protective order as provided in § 35.24 of this part.
( 3 ) The ALJ may grant a motion for discovery only if he or she finds that the discovery sought— ( i ) Is necessary for the expeditious, fair, and reasonable consideration of the issues;
( ii ) Is not unduly costly or burdensome;
( iii ) Will not unduly delay the proceeding; and
( iv ) Does not seek privileged information.
( 4 ) The burden of showing that discovery should be allowed is on the party seeking discovery.
( 5 ) The ALJ may grant discovery subject to a protective order under § 35.24 of this part.
( e ) *Depositions.* ( 1 ) If a motion for deposition is granted, the ALJ shall issue a subpoena for the deponent, which may require the deponent to produce documents. The subpoena shall specify the time and place at which the deposition will be held.
( 2 ) The party seeking to depose shall serve the subpoena in the manner prescribed in § 35.8 of this part.
( 3 ) The deponent may file with the ALJ a motion to quash the subpoena or a motion for a protective order within ten days of service.
( 4 ) The party seeking to depose shall provide for the taking of a verbatim transcript of the deposition, which it shall make available to all other parties for inspection and copying.
( f ) Each party shall bear its own costs of discovery.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-11046 Summary Calendar

LORENZO THOMAS, also known as James H. Thompson, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JIM BOWLES, Etc; ET AL., Defendants, DALLAS POLICE OFFICER CREAMER; DALLAS POLICE OFFICE ZAMORA; DALLAS SHERIFF’S OFFICER NELSON, Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:92-CV-721-BC-G

- - - - - - - - - - May 21, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jeffrey Creamer, Bradford Nelson, and Samuel Zamora appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for a summary judgment dismissing Thomas Lorenzo’s claims that they used excessive force against him and that they failed to provide him with adequate medical care after the second alleged incident ofNo. 98-11046 -2- excessive use of force. Creamer, Nelson, and Zamora argue that Thomas did not present sufficient summary judgment evidence to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists which precludes the court from granting summary judgment. We have interlocutory jurisdiction to determine whether Thomas’ summary judgment facts state a claim under clearly established federal law. See Behrens v. Pelletier , 116 S. Ct. 834, 842 (1996); Nerren v. Livingston Police Dep’t , 86 F.3d 469, 472 (5th Cir. 1996). Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Thomas, we conclude that the district court did not err in holding that Thomas’ allegations state a claim for excessive use of force against Creamer and state a separate claim for excessive use of force against Nelson and Zamora. See Rankin v. Klevenhagen , 5 F.3d 103, 107 (5th Cir. 1993). Thomas’ allegations also state a claim against Nelson and Zamora for failure to provide adequate medical care after the second alleged incident of excessive use of force. See Reeves v. Collins , 27 F.3d 174, 176 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 30758 Summary Calendar

ROBAE AUSTIN , Petitioner

- Appellant

v. DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,

Respondent

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:14

- CV

- 276

Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Robae Austin, Louisiana prisoner # 366497 , appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, challenging his conviction for second degree murder. In reviewing the denial of § 2254 relief, this court reviews issues of law de no vo and findings of fact for clear error, applying the same deference to the state court’s decision as the district court under the

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 20, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-30758 Document: 00514607228 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2018No. 17

- 30758

2 A ntiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (A EDPA )

. Ortiz v. Quarterman , 504 F.3d 492, 496 (5th Cir. 2007). On appeal, Austin asserts that his right to an impartial jury was violated
because the jury foreperson failed to respond honestly to a voir dire question inquiring whether anyone had a friend who had been a victim of a crime. After the verdict, Austin discovered th at the juror had two friends who had been
murdered , and Austin filed a motion for new trial raising the issue . At a hearing on the motion, Austin requested that the foreperson and another juror be allowed to testify

. The trial court did not allow the wit nesses to testify and
denied the motion. In order to obtain a new trial due to a juror’s alleged failure to completely and truthfully answer the questions posed to her during voir dire, the defendant must demonstrate that the complained of juror failed t o provide an honest answer to a material question and that a truthful response would have provided a valid basis to challenge the juror for cause. Hatten v. Quarterman , 570 F.3d 595, 600 (5th Cir. 2009); McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood , 464 U.S. 548, 556 (1984). The district court determined that the foreperson was a fair and impartial juror based on her voir dire responses. Thus, e ven if the foreperson should have been allowed to testify at the hearing as Austin asserts, he has faile d to satisfy the foregoing standard as he has not shown a valid basis to challenge her for cause due to her friendship with two murder
victims. See , e.g., State v. Mitchell , 7 So. 3d 720, 730

- 32 (La. Ct. App. 2009) ; State v. Robinson, 11 So. 3d 613, 622 ( La. Ct. App. 2009) ; McDonough , 464 U.S.
at 556

. Austin has not demonstrated that there was no reasonable basis for the state court to deny relief on his claims. See Harrington v. Richter , 562 U.S. 86, 98

- 99 (2011); § 2254(d). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Case: 17-30758 Document: 00514607228 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/20/2018
§ 47.30 When does a land exchange advance the interests of the beneficiaries? A determination that an exchange advances the interests of the beneficiaries must find that: ( a ) The exchange supports perpetuation of the Hawaiian Home Lands Trust;
( b ) The interests of the beneficiaries in obtaining non-Hawaiian home lands exceeds the interests of the beneficiaries in retaining the Hawaiian home lands proposed for the exchange, based on an evaluation of the factors in § 47.20; and
( c ) The intended use of the conveyed Hawaiian home lands will not significantly conflict with the beneficiaries' interests in adjacent Hawaiian home lands.
#### Isabel George, as Administratrix of the Estate of William George, Deceased, Respondent, v. Long Island Rail Road Company, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s intestate in a grade crossing accident. Judgment in favor of plaintiff, and order denying appellant’s motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell and Johnston, JJ., concur; Adel and Sneed, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and order and to dismiss the complaint on the ground that plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO: 20-14163-CV-MIDDLEBROOKS

LETICIA C. MATEO,

Plaintiff,

v.

EL CHURRASCO GRILL, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING CASE

THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the Parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Order 

Approving Settlement and Dismissing Case with Prejudice (“Joint Motion”). (DE 26). Plaintiff 

initiated this action on May 25, 2020, alleging violations of overtime provisions of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”). (DE 1). The Parties now advise the Court that 

they have settled all claims in this action and move for dismissal. (DE 26).

When a private action is brought under the FLSA and is subsequently settled, “the district 

court may enter a stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness.” Lynn’s Food 

Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982) (internal citations omitted). In 

scrutinizing the settlement for fairness, a court must determine whether the settlement is a “fair 

and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.” Id. at 1355. While the 

provisions of the Act are mandatory, the Eleventh Circuit has recognized that there may be bona 

fide disputes as to FLSA coverage and therefore, a district court may approve a settlement to 

“promote the policy of encouraging settlement of litigation.” Id. at 1354. 

Having reviewed the Joint Motion and exhibits attached thereto, and the Court being 

otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court finds that the Parties’ Settlement Agreement and 

Case 2:20-cv-14163-DMM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

General Release (“Settlement Agreement”) (DE 26, Ex. A) reflects a reasonable compromise over 

contested litigation to resolve bona fide disputes under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing 

Case with Prejudice (DE 26) is GRANTED.

2. The Court APPROVES the Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit A to DE 26, 

including the settlement amount for attorney’s fees, as a fair, adequate and 

reasonable settlement of the claims at issue.

3. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

4. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case and DENY all pending motions as 

MOOT.

5. The Court retains jurisdiction over this action for six months from the date of this 

Order to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this 22nd day of 

September, 2020.

Donald M. Middlebrooks

United States District Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 2:20-cv-14163-DMM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2020 Page 2 of 2
# Jornal Oficial C 290/23 d

| | ISSN 1725-2482 |
| --- | --- |
| Jornal Oficial
  da União Europeia | C 290 |
| | |
| Edição em língua portuguesa | Comunicações e Informações | 48.o ano23 de Novembro de 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2482

Jornal Oficial

da União Europeia

C 290

Edição em língua portuguesa

Comunicações e Informações

48.o ano23 de Novembro de 2005

---

| Número de informação | Índice | Página |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Comunicações |
| | Comissão |
| 2005/C 290/1 | Taxas de câmbio do euro | 1 |

Número de informação

Índice

Página

I   Comunicações

Comissão

2005/C 290/1

Taxas de câmbio do euro

1

| PT | |
| --- | --- |

PT

---

I Comunicações

Comissão

| 23.11.2005 | PT | Jornal Oficial da União Europeia | C 290/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2005

PT

Jornal Oficial da União Europeia

C 290/1

---

Taxas de câmbio do euro (1)

22 de Novembro de 2005

(2005/C 290/01)

1 euro=

| | Moeda | Taxas de câmbio |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | dólar americano | 1,1701 |
| JPY | iene | 139,72 |
| DKK | coroa dinamarquesa | 7,4605 |
| GBP | libra esterlina | 0,68465 |
| SEK | coroa sueca | 9,5426 |
| CHF | franco suíço | 1,5471 |
| ISK | coroa islandesa | 73,82 |
| NOK | coroa norueguesa | 7,8505 |
| BGN | lev | 1,9555 |
| CYP | libra cipriota | 0,5736 |
| CZK | coroa checa | 29,270 |
| EEK | coroa estoniana | 15,6466 |
| HUF | forint | 254,18 |
| LTL | litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | lira maltesa | 0,4293 |
| PLN | zloti | 3,9772 |
| RON | leu | 3,6642 |
| SIT | tolar | 239,52 |
| SKK | coroa eslovaca | 38,700 |
| TRY | lira turca | 1,6030 |
| AUD | dólar australiano | 1,5965 |
| CAD | dólar canadiano | 1,3850 |
| HKD | dólar de Hong Kong | 9,0726 |
| NZD | dólar neozelandês | 1,7052 |
| SGD | dólar de Singapura | 1,9907 |
| KRW | won sul-coreano | 1 221,99 |
| ZAR | rand | 7,7656 |
| CNY | yuan-renminbi chinês | 9,4590 |
| HRK | kuna croata | 7,4030 |
| IDR | rupia indonésia | 11 771,21 |
| MYR | ringgit malaio | 4,423 |
| PHP | peso filipino | 63,630 |
| RUB | rublo russo | 33,7510 |
| THB | baht tailandês | 48,241 |

Moeda

Taxas de câmbio

USD

dólar americano

1,1701

JPY

iene

139,72

DKK

coroa dinamarquesa

7,4605

GBP

libra esterlina

0,68465

SEK

coroa sueca

9,5426

CHF

franco suíço

1,5471

ISK

coroa islandesa

73,82

NOK

coroa norueguesa

7,8505

BGN

lev

1,9555

CYP

libra cipriota

0,5736

CZK

coroa checa

29,270

EEK

coroa estoniana

15,6466

HUF

forint

254,18

LTL

litas

3,4528

LVL

lats

0,6960

MTL

lira maltesa

0,4293

PLN

zloti

3,9772

RON

leu

3,6642

SIT

tolar

239,52

SKK

coroa eslovaca

38,700

TRY

lira turca

1,6030

AUD

dólar australiano

1,5965

CAD

dólar canadiano

1,3850

HKD

dólar de Hong Kong

9,0726

NZD

dólar neozelandês

1,7052

SGD

dólar de Singapura

1,9907

KRW

won sul-coreano

1 221,99

ZAR

rand

7,7656

CNY

yuan-renminbi chinês

9,4590

HRK

kuna croata

7,4030

IDR

rupia indonésia

11 771,21

MYR

ringgit malaio

4,423

PHP

peso filipino

63,630

RUB

rublo russo

33,7510

THB

baht tailandês

48,241

---

(1)

Fonte: Taxas de câmbio de referência publicadas pelo Banco Central Europeu.

---
§ 3715.3-3 How does BLM process the information I submit about my proposed occupancy? BLM will review all proposed occupancies and all proposed enclosures, fences, gates, or signs intended to exclude the general public to determine if your proposed occupancy or use will conform to the provisions of §§ 3715.2, 3715.2-1 and 3715.5. BLM will complete its review of a proposed occupancy not involving a plan of operations within 30 business days of receipt of the materials, unless it concludes that the determination cannot be made until: ( a ) 30 business days after it prepares necessary environmental documents, and
( b ) 30 business days after it has complied with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and/or other applicable statutes, if applicable.
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to this park navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to this park information section
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

Touro Synagogue
National Historic SiteRhode Island
§ 4.313 Amicus curiae; intervention; joinder motions. ( a ) Any interested person or Indian tribe desiring to intervene, to join other parties, to appear as amicus curiae, or to obtain an order in an appeal before the Board must apply in writing to the Board stating the grounds for the action sought. The Board may grant the permission or relief requested for specified purposes and subject to limitations it established. This section will be liberally construed.
( b ) Motions to intervene, to appear as amicus curiae, to join additional parties, or to obtain an order in an appeal pending before the Board must be served in the same manner as appeal briefs.
(No. 20

Claim denied.)

#### The Steel Fabricating Corporation, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed December 18, 1924.*

Franchise *tax*— when *coiirt with jurisdiction.*The court is without jürisdiction to review the tax levying power of the Secretary of State.

The Steel Fabricating Corporation, for claimant.

Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General; Floyd E. Britton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim filed by the Steel Fabricating Corporation to recover the sum of $200.00 claimed to be erroneously paid *41to the office of the Secretary of State. The said tax of $200.00 was paid as alleged by claimant to cover a period over which it is claimed that a tax had already been paid.

It is the opinion of this court that the claim is without legal foundation, as under the circumstances an affirmative action by this court would be in the nature of a review of the tax levying power of the office of the Secretary of State, and therefore this court is further of the opinion that this court is without jurisdiction as a matter of law, and there being nothing in the case where the rule of equity and social justice could be invoked, it is ordered that said claim be disallowed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Declaration of Disaster #3635] 

In accordance with a notice received from the Department of Homeland Security—Federal Emergency Management Agency—effective September 30, 2004, the above numbered declaration is hereby amended to include Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay, Columbia, DeSoto, Dixie, Duval, Flagler, Gilchrist, Glades, Hamilton, Hendry, Jefferson, Lafayette, Levy, Madison, Manatee, Nassau, Putnam, Sarasota, St. Johns, Suwannee, Taylor, and Union as disaster areas due to damages caused by Hurricane Jeanne occurring on September 24, 2004 and continuing. 

                    In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses                           ( print page 60926)                        located in the contiguous counties of Collier, Lee, Leon, and Wakulla in the State of Florida; and Brooks, Camden, Charleton, Clinch, Echols, Lowndes, Thomas, and Ware Counties in the State of Georgia may be filed until the specified date at the previously designated location. All other counties contiguous to the above named primary counties have previously been declared. The economic injury disaster number assigned to Georgia is 9AE300.                 

All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for filing applications for physical damage is November 26, 2004 and for economic injury the deadline is June 27, 2005. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008) 

Dated: October 6, 2004. 

Herbert L. Mitchell, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 04-22928 Filed 10-12-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 147 (Wednesday, July 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 46402]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18418]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8399]

Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``The Dying Gaul''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the object to be 
included in the exhibition ``The Dying Gaul,'' imported from abroad for 
temporary exhibition within the United States, is of cultural 
significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with 
the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or 
display of the exhibit object at the National Gallery of Art, 
Washington, DC, from on or about October 27, 2013, until on or about 
March 17, 2014, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to 
be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit object, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: July 24, 2013.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-18418 Filed 7-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```