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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-cv-22070-FAM

WINDY LUCIUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

NUSRET HOLDINGS USA LLC,

Defendant.

/

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff WINDY LUCIUS (“Plaintiff”) respectfully submits this Notice of Settlement, and 

informs the Court as follows:

1. Plaintiff has reached an agreement with Defendant NUSRET HOLDINGS USA 

LLC (“Defendant”) to resolve the claims against it.

2. The parties will be filing settlement documents with the Court within sixty (60) 

days.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. Courtney Cunningham

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC

FBN: 628166

8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201

Miami, FL 33156

T: 305-351-2014

cc@cunninghampllc.com

Case 1:20-cv-22070-FAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 22, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document 

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

/s/ J. Courtney Cunningham

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

Case 1:20-cv-22070-FAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2020 Page 2 of 2
1

Payments

Annual rental payments will be made at 50 percent of the 

weighted average soil rental rate for the SHIPP offer, using 

the county average rental rate for the applicable county; the 

rate for beginning, limited resource, socially disadvantaged, 

and veteran farmers and ranchers will be 75 percent. Costshare is only available to beginning, limited resource, socially 

disadvantaged, and veteran farmers and ranchers for practice 

establishment.

Land may be hayed or grazed outside the primary nesting 

season with no reduction, provided adequate stubble height of 

the cover is maintained to protect the soil as specified in the 

conservation plan. In exchange for a 25 percent reduction to 

the annual rental payment, and not being eligible to be insured 

or reinsured under the Federal Crop Insurance Act, the land 

may also be harvested for seed outside the primary nesting 

season as specified in the conservation plan. 

How to Apply

Producers may apply for this limited time SHIPP pilot at their 

local FSA office from March 30 – August 21, 2020. 

More Information

For more information about FSA and its programs, visit

www.fsa.usda.gov or contact your local FSA office. For 

local USDA Service Center information, visit

farmers.gov/service-locator.

Overview

On February 20, 2020, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) 

announced a Soil Health and Income Protection Program 

(SHIPP) Pilot. The SHIPP pilot allows for a maximum of 

50,000 acres to be enrolled in the prairie pothole states of 

Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. 

Program at a Glance

SHIPP is a voluntary program that allows contracts with 

agricultural producers for a contract term of 3, 4, or 5 years. 

Recently expired CRP acres are not eligible for enrollment 

and participants must plant the lowest practical cost perennial 

conserving use cover crop. The 2018 Farm Bill authorizes a 

maximum of 50,000 acres for SHIPP. The Food Security Act 

of 1985, as amended, authorized SHIPP and is governed by 

regulations published in 7 CFR Part 1410.

Eligible Land

Eligible land must meet the following criteria to enroll in 

SHIPP:

• be less productive land on the farm

• have been planted (and not in CRP) in crop years 2017, 

2018, and 2019, and

• have a total of no more than 15 percent of the eligible land 

per farm enrolled in SHIPP.

Who is Eligible

To be eligible for SHIPP, land must be located in one of the 

prairie pothole states of Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, North 

Dakota, or South Dakota.

FACT SHEET

February 2020

Soil Health and Income Protection 

Program (SHIPP) Pilot

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
#### § 8.4 Blocking out.

Blocking out will be accomplished in accordance with sound real estate practices, for example, on minor sectional subdivision lines; and normally land will not be acquired to avoid severance damage if the owner will waive such damage.
§ 108.1630 SBA regulation of Brokers and Dealers and disclosure to purchasers of Leverage or Trust Certificates. ( a ) *Brokers and Dealers.* Each broker, dealer, and Pool or Trust assembler approved by SBA pursuant to these regulations shall either be regulated by a Federal financial regulatory agency, or be a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), and shall be in good standing in respect to compliance with the financial, ethical, and reporting requirements of such body. They also shall be in good standing with SBA as determined by the SBA Associate Administrator for Investment (see paragraph (c) of this section) and shall provide a fidelity bond or insurance in such amount as SBA may require.
( b ) *Suspension and/or termination of Broker or Dealer.* SBA shall exclude from the sale and all other dealings in Debentures or TCs any broker or dealer: ( 1 ) If such broker's or dealer's authority to engage in the securities business has been revoked or suspended by a supervisory agency. When such authority has been suspended, SBA will suspend such broker or dealer for the duration of such suspension by the supervisory agency.
( 2 ) If such broker or dealer has been indicted or otherwise formally charged with a misdemeanor or felony bearing on its fitness, such broker or dealer may be suspended while the charge is pending. Upon conviction, participation may be terminated.
( 3 ) If such broker or dealer has suffered an adverse final civil judgment holding that such broker or dealer has committed a breach of trust or violation of law or regulation protecting the integrity of business transactions or relationships, participation in the market for Debentures or TCs may be terminated.
( c ) *Termination/suspension proceedings.* A broker's or dealer's participation in the market for Debentures or TCs will be conducted in accordance with part 134 of this chapter. SBA may, for any of the reasons stated in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section, suspend the privilege of any broker or dealer to participate in this market. SBA shall give written notice at least ten (10) business days prior to the effective date of such suspension. Such notice shall inform the broker or dealer of the opportunity for a hearing pursuant to part 134 of this chapter.
### §722. Basis of contributing partner's interest

The basis of an interest in a partnership acquired by a contribution of property, including money, to the partnership shall be the amount of such money and the adjusted basis of such property to the contributing partner at the time of the contribution increased by the amount (if any) of gain recognized under section 721(b) to the contributing partner at such time.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 245; Pub. L. 94–455, title XXI, §2131(c), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1924; Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title VII, §722(f)(1), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 974.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–369 inserted "under section 721(b)" after "gain recognized".

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 inserted "increased by the amount (if any) of gain recognized to the contributing partner at such time" after "at the time of the contribution".

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

#### Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title VII, §722(f)(2), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 974, provided that: "The amendments made by paragraph (1) [amending this section and section 723 of this title] shall take effect as if included in the amendments made by section 2131 of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 [Pub. L. 94–455]."

#### Effective Date of 1976 Amendment

For effective date of amendment made by Pub. L. 94–455, see section 2131(f)(3)–(5) of Pub. L. 94–455, set out as a note under section 721 of this title.
### §4. Precedence of associate justices

Associate justices shall have precedence according to the seniority of their commissions. Justices whose commissions bear the same date shall have precedence according to seniority in age.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 869.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §322 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §216, 36 Stat. 1152).

Minor changes in phraseology were made.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          974832                       0
<SECURITIES>                                   4448047                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1725453                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    2303193                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              12753504                       0
<PP&E>                                        12053768                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                43489836                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         23603808                       0
<BONDS>                                         778042                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        695792                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                    17342646                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  43489836                       0
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              55009168                40472440
<CGS>                                         22407381                15255346
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 22407381                15255346
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              31326400                16962046
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              301317                  148762
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1903911                 8781720
<INCOME-TAX>                                    666369                 3073251
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1237542                 5708469
<DISCONTINUED>                                 599,788                  582786
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1837330                 6291255
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .028                    .104
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .028                    .104
        

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 2062** 

GEORGES ARISTIDE BERNAR D MEKONGO , Petitioner ,

v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. , Attorney General, Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immi gration Appeals

.

Submitted : August 17, 2010 Decided: September 13, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

E. Dennis Muchnicki, Dublin, Ohio, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assista nt Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Mona Maria Yousif, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Georges Aristide Bernard Mekongo, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the I mmigration Judge’s denial of his applications for relief from removal. Mekongo first challenges the determination that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that

no reasonable f actfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483

- 84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Mekongo fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having fail ed to qualify for asylum, Mekongo cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.

Chen v. INS , 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v.

Cardoza

- Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### Edward Slater, Respondent, v. Rufus F. Hanning, Appellant.

Judgement affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
### §7484. Change of incumbent in office

When the incumbent of the office of Secretary changes, no substitution of the name of his successor shall be required in proceedings pending before any appellate court reviewing the action of the Tax Court.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 891; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary".
#### § 3936.10 Inspection of underground and surface operations and facilities.

Operators, licensees, or lessees must allow the BLM, at any time, either day or night, to inspect or investigate underground and surface mining, in situ, or exploration operations to determine compliance with lease or license terms and conditions, compliance with the approved exploration or development plans, and to verify production.
#### Sophie Buchsbaum, Appellant, v. Julius Buchsbaum, Respondent.

Judgment, insofar as it awards defendant a separation on his counterclaim, unanimously reversed and the counterclaim dismissed; judgment otherwise affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Van Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See 274 App. Div. 783.]
Exhibit 32.1


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


I, Robert Spivak, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Grill Concepts, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June
27, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Grill Concepts, Inc.


                                   By: /s/ Robert Spivak
                                       -----------------
                                   Name: Robert Spivak
                                   Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                   October 13, 2004


<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Leviathan
Gas Pipeline Partners, L.P. and subsidiaries consolidated financial statements
at September 30, 1998 included in its Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,191
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,914
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,233
<PP&E>                                         298,875
<DEPRECIATION>                                  91,868
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 405,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,209
<BONDS>                                        291,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   405,300
<SALES>                                         22,270
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,317
<CGS>                                            8,558
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,558
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,766
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,711
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,091)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (371)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,720)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,720)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)
        

</TABLE>
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 4

**Question 4:** How is the dose from radon considered? What about technologically enhanced radon at a licensed facility? [Note: Technologically enhanced natural radiation sources have been defined as "truly natural sources of radiation . . . which would not occur without (or would be increased by) some technological activity not expressly designed to produce radiation." Reference: T.F. Gesell and H.M. Prichard, Health Physics 28, 361-366, April 1975.]

**Answer:** How the dose from radon is treated depends upon the source of the radon. If the source is NRC-licensed material such as mill tailings or ores, then the dose from radon and its particulate daughters should be included in estimates of doses to workers or to members of the general public (except for 40 CFR Part 190 evaluations which exclude radon).If the source of the radon is from radium that is not licensed or controlled by any agency, then the dose from radon and its daughters is considered background radiation and may be excluded from occupational or public dose estimates, whether there is any technological enhancement of the concentrations or not. Many states are working toward licensing certain materials containing radium and these sources will need to be known to licensees even if they are not the persons licensed by the States. (See definitions of "background radiation," "source material," and "byproduct material" in 10 CFR 20.1003).

(References: 10 CFR 20.1001, 10 CFR 20.1002, 10 CFR 20.1003)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, November 27, 2017
### §2646. Retrial or rehearing

After the Court of International Trade has rendered a judgment or order, the court may, upon the motion of a party or upon its own motion, grant a retrial or rehearing, as the case may be. A motion of a party or the court shall be made not later than thirty days after the date of entry of the judgment or order.

(Added Pub. L. 96–417, title III, §301, Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1739.)
(No. 802

Claimant awarded $21,698.08.)

#### Washington Porter II and Frederick C. Porter, Executors of the Estate of Washington Porter, Deceased, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed September 17, 1924.*

Inheritance *tax*— when, *refund for overpayment will be made.*Where an inheritance tax has been fixed by the county judge, and is paid, and an appeal is taken to the county court where upon hearing thereon the county court finds that the tax paid is more than the State is entitled to receive, claimant is entitled to a refund' of the difference between the amount of the tax paid under the original order of the county judge and the amount found due by the county court upon appeal.

Wilson, McIlvaine, Hale & Templeton, for claimant.

Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimants, Washington Porter II and Frederick C. Porter, executors of the estate of Washington Porter, claim a refund of inheritance tax erroneously paid on an erroneous original order entered by the county judge of the county court of Cook county, Illinois.

Washington Porter died June 24, 1922, leaving a last will and testament’. The claimants were duly appointed executors of such will and testament, and as such duly qualified and are acting as such executors. Thereafter proper proceedings were had in such court and the county judge in December, 1922, entered an order fixing amount of inheritance tax at $68,611.78 which was paid. On appeal in due time the county court modified the order so entered and found and fixed the actual amount to be paid at $43,483.11, being amount to be paid after deducting the 5% discount.

From this it appears that the executors erroneously paid more than was due the State to-wit: The difference between $65,181.19 and $43,483.11 equals $21,698.08. The Attorney General files a written consent to the allowance of said difference above mentioned, and that *3%*should be paid as alleged in declaration. The evidence supports the claimants’ claim.

It is therefore the order of the court that claimants be awarded the sum of $21,698.08.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF BARRY SOMERVAIL


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Neuro-Biotech
Corp. for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (“Report”), the undersigned, in
the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





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





Date:
            August
      20, 2010





/s/Barry
  Somervail


Barry
Somervail


Chief
Executive Officer
#### § 3873.1 Segregation of mineral from non-mineral land.

Where a survey is necessary to set apart mineral from non-mineral land the appropriate authorized officer will have special instructions prepared outlining the procedure to be followed in the required survey. The survey will be executed at the expense of the United States. Where, in stock-raising homestead entries, it has been satisfactorily established that there are existent prior unpatented mining claims, the segregation of the latter is not strictly a segregation of mineral from non-mineral land, but rather the procedure adopted to define the boundaries of and provide a legal description for that part of the homestead entry which is not within the segregated mining claims.