alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 423.60 How special use areas are designated. ( a ) After making a determination under paragraph (b) of this section, an authorized official may: ( 1 ) Establish special use areas within Reclamation facilities, lands, or waterbodies for application of reasonable schedules of visiting hours; public use limits; and other conditions, restrictions, allowances, or prohibitions on particular uses or activities that vary from the provisions of subpart C of this part, except § 423.28(a); and
( 2 ) From time to time revise the boundaries of a previously designated special use area and revise or terminate previously imposed schedules of visiting hours; public use limits; and other conditions, restrictions, allowances, or prohibitions on a use or activity.
( b ) Before taking action under paragraph (a) of this section, an authorized official must make a determination that action is necessary for: ( 1 ) The protection of public health and safety;
( 2 ) The protection and preservation of cultural and natural resources;
( 3 ) The protection of environmental and scenic values, scientific research, the security of Reclamation facilities, the avoidance of conflict among visitor use activities; or
( 4 ) Other reasons in the public interest.
( c ) An authorized official establishing a special use area must document in writing the determination described in paragraph (b) of this section. Such documentation must occur before the action, except in emergencies or situations of immediate need as described in § 423.61(c), in which case the documentation is required within 30 days after the date of the action. Reclamation will make documents produced under this section available to the public upon request except where such disclosure could compromise national or facility security, or human safety.
[73 FR 75349, Dec. 11, 2008, as amended at 88 FR 80992, Nov. 21, 2023]
**Exhibit 32.1**

**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 VAALCO Energy, Inc. (the “**Company**”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “**Report**”), I, Robert L. Gerry, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to my knowledge: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

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

Dated: November 8, 2010
(May 19, 1948.)

#### In the Matter of Thomas Costigan, an Attorney.

Motion for reinstatement granted. Present — Glennon, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 !
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 "
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 #
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 $
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 %
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 &
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 '
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 (
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 )
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 !
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 "
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 #
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 $
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 %
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 &
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 '
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 (
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 ! )
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 ! 
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 ! !
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 ! "
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 ! #
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 ! $
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 ! %
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 ! &
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 ! '
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 ! (
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 " )
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 " 
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 " !
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 " "
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 " #
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 " $
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 " %
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 " &
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 " '
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 " (
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 # )
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 # 
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 # !
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 # "
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 # #
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 # $
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 # %
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 # &
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 # '
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 # (
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 $ )
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 $ 

2 3 , *( )3 2 30 4 0 3 5 , 467 3 8 ) 9 3 )8 0 8 0 : 9 3 )8
 ! "# $ & '( )*+ , - . /,0( , )- # . $ # 1 $ !

7 3' 6; <3 = > & ? @ = A = > ?B C D A = @ D E A ? F ? A A G B = > &

A G D G > > = A C C H I > G D C D H > & J !# J G A K L ? @ I = > = > L

> ?B C D & E G M E L L C E G K & > G G N H C L ?C O O = L ?> F C D = M G
United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Cary Grimaldo, Plaintiff,

v.

Scottsdale Insurance Company, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 20-21980-Civ-Scola

Order

On June 8, 2020, the parties filed a “Joint Stipulation to Limit Indemnity, 

Attorney’s Fees, and Costs” such that the Plaintiff’s total recovery “will not exceed 

$75,000.” (Joint Stip., ECF No. 9 at 1.) In substance, the parties are in agreement 

that this action does not meet the jurisdictional threshold for this Court to have 

subject matter jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, as “the parties have agreed to remand the case” (ECF No. 9-1), 

and consistent with the relevant legal authorities, the Court grants the plaintiff’s 

motion to remand (ECF No. 8) and directs the Clerk to ensure the prompt remand

of this matter, to the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for 

Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Clerk is directed to close this case. Any pending motions are denied as 

moot.

Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on June 8, 2020.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-21980-RNS Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 1 of 1
#### McMullen Leavens Co., Incorporated, Appellant-Respondent, *v.*L. I. Van Buskirk Co., Defendant, and Mill Factors Corporation, RespondentAppellant.

*Per Curiam.*

Plaintiff (McMullen Leavens Co., Incorporated) has rescinded a contract for the purchase of merchandise, returned the goods to the seller (L. I. Van Buskirk Co.), and now sues the seller’s factor (Mill Factors Corporation) to recover the purchase price. The purchase price was paid directly to the factor, which had taken an assignment from the seller of the account receivable arising from the sale and delivery of these goods, in order to reimburse or secure itself for moneys which had been loaned to the seller. The seller and the factor have been joined as parties defendant, but the summons and complaint have been served upon the factor only. Both the plaintiff and the factor have moved for summary judgment under rule 113. Both motions have been denied on the ground that triable issues are involved, and both of said parties have appealed. In *Matter of Kaufman (Iselin & Co.)*(272 App. Div. 578) a factor was held not to be bound by the obligations of a contract of sale between the seller and purchaser, at least where the factor is not taking affirmative steps to enforce the contract as assignee. Although it is true in that case that the purchaser had elected to affirm the sale and recover damages for breach of warranty, we find no difference in principle between that situation and the present where the purchaser elected to rescind. The merchandise which was the subject of the sale has been properly returned to the seller, not to the factor, and it is the seller which is obligated to refund the purchase money to the buyer if the latter’s contentions are well founded. The factor was merely the assignee of an invoice and of the merchandise covered thereby for the purpose of securing or repaying a loan. Any remedy on the part of the purchaser is exclusively against the seller.

The order denying the motion for summary judgment of the plaintiff McMullen Leavens Co., Incorporated, should be affirmed, but the order denying the motion of the defendant Mill Factors Corporation for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should be reversed and said motion granted, with costs of the appeal and of the action.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Order denying the motion of the plaintiff for summary judgment unanimously affirmed, but the order denying the motion of the defendant Mill Factors Corporation for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed and the *motion*granted, with costs of the appeal and of the action. [See post, p. 822.]
EXHIBIT 6

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 1 of 3
1

Rauh, Olivia

From: Viswanatha, Veena

Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 3:49 PM

To: Braunstein, Joshua; Petrilla, Antony

Cc: Regan, Christopher; greenbergb@gtlaw.com; Rauh, Olivia

Subject: RE: JMJ - Discovery - SMAIL

Josh, 

Thank you for your April 30, 2021, email. In your email, you note that it would take “an estimated 470 hours of SEC staff 

time” to respond to Mr. Keener’s Second Set of Requests for Production. Can you let us know what search terms you 

applied in deriving that estimate? 

We are interested in working with you to create a more targeted search to reduce that number. Accordingly, please 

advise if you are willing to share your search terms and discuss ways to reduce the number of documents that would 

need to be reviewed. 

Veena 

Veena Viswanatha 

Buckley LLP

T (202) 461-2947 

M (908) 420-0113 

vviswanatha@buckleyfirm.com

From: Braunstein, Joshua <sec.notification@zixmessagecenter.com> 

Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 11:58 AM 

To: Viswanatha, Veena <vviswanatha@buckleyfirm.com> 

Subject: JMJ - Discovery - SMAIL 

[EXTERNAL]

New ZixCorp secure email message from U.S. Securities and Exchange 

Commission Secure Email

Open Message

To view the secure message, click Open Message. 

The secure message expires on Jul 29, 2021 @ 03:57 PM (GMT). 

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 2 of 3
2

Do not reply to this notification message; this message was auto-generated by the sender's security system

reply to the sender, click Open Message. 

If clicking Open Message does not work, copy and paste the link below into your Internet browser address b

https://web1.zixmail.net/s/e?b=sec&m=ABABELeIq1CzuoW5jjDiWwep&em=vviswanatha%40buckleyfirm%

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 3 of 3
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

In the matter of Case Transfers to 

District Judge David S. Leibowitz

1. United States, et al. v. Vascular and Interventional Specialists, LLC, et al., 20-cv22046. 

2. AVR Group LLC, et al. v. Alebrije Entertainment LLC, et al., 24-cv-20755.

ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT 

The above-styled cases have been selected for reassignment from the 

undersigned District Judge to the newly appointed District Judge David S. Leibowitz. 

Pursuant to Internal Operating Procedure 2.05.03 – 2.05.04 of the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Florida, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that 

the above-styled actions are REASSIGNED to the calendar of the Honorable David S. 

Leibowitz. All currently pending hearings set before the undersigned Judge are 

TERMINATED and are to be rescheduled by Judge David S. Leibowitz. All deadlines 

shall REMAIN IN EFFECT unless altered by Judge David S. Leibowitz. All papers filed 

after this date shall bear the assigned case number followed by the initials DSL, indicating 

the Judge to whom all pleadings should be routed. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, on this 2nd day of April, 

2024.

Case 1:20-cv-22046-DSL Document 68 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2024 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32(ii)





Certification
of Chief Financial Officer Regarding Periodic Report Containing Financial
Statements


pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002





The
undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (i) the Form 10-K filed by
Crescent Financial Corporation (the “Issuer”) for the year ended December 31,
2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained
in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the
periods presented therein.





Date:  March
      27, 2009
                /s/ Bruce W.
    ElderBruce
      W. ElderVice
      President (Principal Financial Officer)
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSuperfluid helium dynamicsTwo papers on cryogenics are presented. The first is entitled, Characterizing He II Flow Through Porous Materials Using Counterflow Data. The second paper is entitled, Thermal Behavior of the SHOOT Gallery Arm. Both papers were presented at the Cryogenic Engineering Conference in Huntsville, AL.Document ID19920002076Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsVansciver, Steven W.*(Wisconsin Univ. Madison, WI, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateDecember 31, 1990Subject CategoryFluid Mechanics And Heat TransferReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-188814NAS 1.26:188814Accession Number92N11294Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG5-1031Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19920002076.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsIDRelationTitleN92-11295 through N92-11296Workvisibility_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
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

530 

KA 15-01733 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANDREW K. PEYATT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THOMAS J. EOANNOU, BUFFALO, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (THOMAS H. BRANDT OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S.

Farkas, J.), rendered April 22, 2014. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sexual act

in the first degree and attempted course of sexual conduct against a

child in the first degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of attempted course of sexual conduct against

a child in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.75 [1] [a]) and

attempted criminal sexual act in the first degree (§§ 110.00, 130.50

[1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that

he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal

(see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256), and that valid waiver

forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence

(see id. at 255; see generally People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827;

People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737). We note, however, that both the

certificate of conviction and the uniform sentence and commitment form

incorrectly recite that defendant was convicted of criminal sexual act

in the first degree rather than an attempt to commit that crime. The

certificate of conviction and the sentence and commitment form must

therefore be amended to correct that clerical error (see People v

Oberdorf, 136 AD3d 1291, 1292-1293).

Entered: June 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### § 3420.4 Final consultations.
# ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

July 19, 2024 CR-2023-0362 Martin Arrendondo Evenes v. State of Alabama (Appeal from Madison Circuit Court: CC-19-4608) 

## NOTICE You are hereby notified that on July 19, 2024, the following action was taken in the above-referenced cause by the Court of Criminal Appeals: Application for Rehearing Overruled.

D. Scott Mitchell, Clerk
#### § 417.1 Scope of part.

The procedures established in this part shall apply to every public or private organization (herein termed “Contractor”) in Arizona, California, or Nevada which, pursuant to the Boulder Canyon Project Act or to provisions of other Reclamation Laws, has a valid contract for the delivery of Colorado River water, and to Federal establishments other than Indian Reservations enumerated in Article II(D) of the March 9, 1964, Decree of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of “Arizona v. California et al.”, 376 U.S. 340 (for purposes of this part each such Federal establishment is considered as a “Contractor”), except that (a) neither this part nor the term “Contractor” as used herein shall apply to any person or entity which has a contract for the delivery or use of Colorado River water made pursuant to the Warren Act of February 21, 1911 (36 Stat. 925) or the Miscellaneous Purposes Act of February 25, 1920 (41 Stat. 451), (b) Contractors and permittees for small quantities of water, as determined by the Regional Director, Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, Nev. (herein termed “Regional Director”), and Contractors for municipal and industrial water may be excluded from the application of these procedures at the discretion of the Regional Director, and (c) procedural methods for implementing Colorado River water conservation measures on Indian Reservations will be in accordance with § 417.5 of this part.
#### § 9268.0-3 Authority.

The provisions of this subpart are issued under section 303(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1733), and other authorities where specifically noted.
§ 5.7 What are my liability and bonding requirements as a permit holder? ( a ) *Liability.* In accepting a permit, you agree to be fully liable for any damage or injury incurred in connection with the permitted activity, and to indemnify and hold harmless the United States of America as a result of your actions. We may require you to obtain property damage, personal injury, commercial liability or public liability insurance in an amount sufficient to protect the United States from liability or other claims arising from activities under the permit. The insurance policy must name the United States of America as an additional insured.
( b ) *Bond.* You are responsible for all response, repair and restoration if your activity causes damage to an area. We may also require you to provide a bond or other security sufficient to secure any obligations you may have under the permit and applicable laws and regulations, including the cost of repair, reclamation, or restoration of the area. The amount of the bond or security must be in an amount sufficient to provide full payment for the costs of response and restoration, reclamation, or rehabilitation of the lands in the event that you fail to adequately repair, reclaim, or restore the area as directed by the agency. If the amount of the bond or other security is inadequate to cover cost of the repair, reclamation, or restoration of the damaged lands or resources you will also be responsible for the additional amount.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CIV-61023-RAR

EDWARD MATTHEW BUCKLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EMMETT MOORE, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’s Report 

and Recommendation, [ECF No. 128] (“Report”), on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce the September 

3, 2021 Good Faith Court-Mediated Settlement and Request for Dismissal [ECF No. 119] 

(“Motion”), filed on April 1, 2022. The Report recommends that the Court GRANT Plaintiffs’ 

Motion in part—directing the parties to execute a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, refusing

to retain jurisdiction to further enforce the settlement agreement, and declining to impose sanctions 

on Defendants or afford the other forms of relief requested by the Motion. See Report at 1. The

time for objections has passed, and there are no objections to the Report. 

When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has properly been objected to, district courts must 

review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). However, when no party has timely 

objected, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in 

order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation 

omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has 

acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de novo review where objections have been 

properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It 

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2022 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge]’s 

factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to 

those findings.”). In any event, the “[f]ailure to object to the magistrate [judge]’s factual findings 

after notice precludes a later attack on these findings.” Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th 

Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982)). 

Because there are no objections to the Report, the Court did not conduct a de novo review. 

Rather, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding none, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report [ECF No. 128] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 

2. Plaintiffs’ Motion [ECF No. 119] is GRANTED in part.

3. The parties are directed to file a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice on or 

before April 25, 2022. The Court will not retain jurisdiction to further enforce 

the September 3, 2021 settlement agreement.

4. Any pending motions are hereby DENIED AS MOOT.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 18th day of April, 2022.

 _________________________________

 RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Counsel of record

Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2022 Page 2 of 2