alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Shaytayya Welch, Plaintiff,

v.

Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 20-22466-Civ-Scola

Order Striking Joint Stipulation

The parties filed a stipulation agreeing to a jury trial and to strike count 

two of the complaint (ECF No. 7). The Plaintiff has no right to a jury trial, and 

the Court need not hold a jury trial based on the agreement of the parties. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(c) (with the consent of both parties, the court “may” order jury 

trial). Welch asserts that she is proceeding under admiralty jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333 (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 4), and she acknowledges that she 

does not have a right to a jury trial. (Id. at ¶¶ 4, 6.) The parties’ stipulation for a 

jury trial is incompatible with a case proceeding solely under the Court’s 

admiralty jurisdiction. See Beiswenger Enterprises Corp. v. Carletta, 86 F.3d 

1032, 1037 (11th Cir. 1996) (“[A]s in all admiralty cases, there is no right to a 

jury trial.”); Barry v. Shell Oil Co., No. CIVA 13-6133, 2014 WL 775662, at *3 

(E.D. La. Feb. 25, 2014) (“As Plaintiff’s claims here are solely based on general 

maritime law and there is a lack of diversity among the parties, there is no way 

for Plaintiff to have a trial by jury in this Court.”).

Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, jury trials have been suspended from 

March 2020 until at least January 2021, and, whenever the suspension ends, 

the Court will have a massive backlog of cases where the parties are entitled to 

a jury trial.

Therefore, the Court declines to approve the parties’ stipulation and 

directs the Clerk to strike the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 7).

Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on August 7, 2020.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-22466-RNS Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:20-cv-22466-RNS Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 2 of 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 120

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 120.922 Pre-existing debt on the Project Property.

In addition to its share of Project cost, a Third-Party Loan may include consolidation of existing debt on the Project Property. The consolidation must not improve the lien position of the Lender on the pre-existing debt, unless the debt is a previous Third-Party Loan.
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 Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


Zion
National Park
Utah


Info
Alerts
Maps
Calendar
Fees


Alerts In Effect Dismiss
 more information on current conditions...
 Dismiss View all alerts


Contact Us
  Gambel's Quail
 Gambel's QuailGambel’s Quail (Callipepla gambelii) National Park Service NPGallery (live bird)
The Gambel’s Quail is found in the dry deserts of the American Southwest. This species is a poor flyer. The quail’s long-toed feet allow for walking and feeding on the ground in search of seeds, insects, and water. They are also able to go up into shrubs and low trees in search of berries. Gambel’s Quails also have a shorter back toe that does not touch the ground when walking or running. Both sexes have the forward-facing topknot of feathers. They are most active in the morning and evening, during the cooler times of the day.
 Last updated: August 23, 2022
 Park footer Contact Info Mailing Address: Zion National Park
1 Zion Park Blvd.
Springdale,
UT
84767
 Phone: 435-772-3256
If you have questions, please email zion_park_information@nps.gov.
Listen to recorded information by calling anytime 24 hours a day.
Rangers answer phone calls from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. MT, but a ranger may not answer if they are already speaking with someone else. Contact Us
 Tools FAQ
Site Index
Español
 Stay Connected


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
EX-10.16





 Exhibit 10.16 

CERTAIN INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED BY [***], 

HAS BEEN OMITTED BECAUSE IT IS BOTH NOT MATERIAL AND IS THE TYPE 

THAT THE REGISTRANT TREATS AS PRIVATE OR CONFIDENTIAL. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CELL LINE LICENSE AGREEMENT 

This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) is entered into between Silverback Therapeutics, Inc. (“Licensee”) and WuXi
Biologics (Hong Kong) Limited (“WuXi Biologics”), effective as of the date of the last signature hereto, and amends, as set forth herein, the Cell Line License Agreement (the “CLLA”), effective as of 11 October, 2019 entered
into between Licensee and WuXi Biologics. Each of WuXi Biologics and Licensee are referred to from time to time as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”. All terms used, but not otherwise defined, in this Amendment shall
have the meanings accorded to them in the CLLA. 
 1. The Parties hereby agree to amend the Appendix I pursuant to Section 1.2 of the
CLLA as follows: 
 List of Service Agreements for Licensee Products 

 

							
	 	  	 Licensee

Product Name
	  	 Contract(e.g.,MasterService

Agreements)
	  	 Effective Date

	1	  	[***]	  	[***]	  	[***]
	2	  	[***]	  	[***]	  	[***]
	3	  		  		  	
	 4
	  		  		  	

  

	2.	 Miscellaneous. 



 

	 	2.1	 Ratification of Agreement. The CLLA is in all respects ratified and confirmed by the Parties.



  

	 	2.2	 One Instrument. The CLLA and this Amendment shall be read, taken and construed as one and the same
document. 


  

	 	2.3	 Counterpart Signatures. This Amendment may be signed by the Parties in multiple, separate counterparts
which when taken together shall constitute one and the same 


 ***Certain Information Omitted 

  
 Page 1 of 2















	 	
document. This Agreement may be signed by electronic signature via a recognized provider (e.g., DocuSign or Adobe) or “.pdf” file and such signature shall be deemed to bind each Party
hereto as if they were original. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have signed this Amendment through their duly authorized representatives.

  

									
	WuXi Biologics (Hong Kong) Limited	 		 	Silverback Therapeutics, Inc.
					
	Signature:	 	 /s/ Chris Chen
	 		 	Signature:	 	 /s/ Jeffrey Pepe

					
	Name:	 	 Chris Chen
	 		 	Name:	 	 Jeffrey Pepe

					
	Title:	 	 CEO
	 		 	Title:	 	 General Counsel

					
	Date:	 	 1/12/2021
	 		 	Date:	 	 1/12/2021



  
 Page 2 of 2
#### Kraus-Baum Company, Respondent, v. Moses Housman, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Clarke, Scott and Hotchkiss, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 120

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 120.193 Reconsideration after denial.

An applicant or recipient of a business loan may request reconsideration of a denied loan or loan modification request within 6 months of denial. Applicants denied due to a size determination can appeal that determination under part 121 of this chapter. All others must be submitted to the office that denied the original request. To prevail, the applicant must demonstrate that it has overcome all legitimate reasons for denial. Six months after denial, a new application is required. If the reconsideration is denied, a second and final reconsideration may be considered by the Director, Office of Financial Assistance (D/FA) or designee(s), whose decision is final. The SBA Administrator, solely within the Administrator's discretion, may choose to review the matter and make the final decision. Such discretionary authority of the Administrator does not create additional rights of appeal on the part of an applicant not otherwise specified in SBA regulations.

[61 FR 3235, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 88 FR 21085, Apr. 10, 2023]
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 109

**Question 109:**
> 
(a) Can a cardiologist who performs both nuclear cardiology and cardiac catheterization use a planned special exposure (PSE) to perform an emergency cardiac catheterization on the last day of the licensee's monitoring year if his annual exposure as of December 30 is 4.9 rem? It is expected that he will receive greater than 100 mrem during the procedure.

(b) Could the same cardiologist perform multiple cardiac atheterization as PSEs routinely during November and December if his annual exposure as of October 31 is 4.9 rem?

**Answer:**
> 
(a) Yes, provided all administrative requirements of 10 CFR 20.1206 are met. (Note, although NRC is not regulating non-byproduct material, NRC still has regulatory authority since the occupational dose has been defined to include exposure from "licensed and unlicensed sources of radiation.") 

(Reference: 20.1003 and 20.1206)

(b) No. 10 CFR 20.1206 (a) requires that a PSE be authorized ". . . only in an exceptional situation when alternatives that might avoid the higher exposure are unavailable or impractical." Performing routine occupational tasks for two months is not an exceptional situation, so the condition in 10 CFR 20.1206 (a) is not met. In short, PSEs cannot be used as a general mechanism to increase the annual dose limit from 5 rem to 10 rem TEDE, for normal situations. Note: The regulations do not prohibit the cardiologist from performing the procedures. If the cardiologist's exposure exceeds the annual limit, it should be treated as an overexposure rather than a PSE.

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1003 and 20.1206)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, October 31, 2017
#### William Sideris, Appellant, v. Almahar Construction Company, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
EXHIBIT “1”

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 139-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/01/2023 Page 1 of 2
Company Code

RA / 46A 22303671

Grill Enterprises LLC

1450 Brickell Ave Suite 2080

Miami, FL 33131

Loc/Dept Loc/DeptLoc/DeptLoc/Dept

01/

Number

2599823 2599823

Page

1 of 1 Earnings Statement

Period Starting: 06/21/2018

Period Ending: 07/04/2018

Pay Date: 07/06/2018

Taxable Marital Status: Single

Exemptions/Allowances: Tax Override:

Federal: 0 Federal:

State: 0 State:

Local: 0 Local:

Social Security Number: XXX-XX-XXXX

Erik Chavez

2130 SW 122 Ave 2130 SW 122 Ave

Miami, FL 33175

Grill Enterprises LLC

1450 Brickell Ave Suite 2080

Miami, FL 33131

Your federal taxable wages this period are $2,031.93

Pay Date: Pay Date:Pay Date:Pay Date: 07/06/2018

Erik Chavez

2130 SW 122 Ave

Miami, FL 33175

Earnings EarningsEarningsEarnings rate hours/units hours/unitshours/unitshours/units this period this periodthis periodthis period year to date

Tipped hours 5.2300 69.35 362.70 4015.30

Cash tips 0.00 1669.23 22789.53

Gross Pay Gross PayGross PayGross Pay $2,031.93 $26,804.83

Statutory Deductions this period this periodthis periodthis period year to date

Federal Income -207.26 1902.81

Social Security -125.98 1661.90

Medicare -29.46 388.67

Net Pay Net Pay $0.00

Other Benefits and

Information InformationInformationInformation this period this periodthis periodthis period year to date

Tip Credit 209.44 2431.82

Total Hours Worked 69.35 781.47

47

---

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 139-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/01/2023 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Wells Real Estate Fund VI, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F.
Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the
Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|                                                         
|/s/    LEO F. WELLS, III                                 
|                                                         
|Leo F. Wells, III Chief
Executive Officer August 13, 2003

|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|                                                           
|/s/     DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                                
|                                                           
|Douglas P. Williams Chief
Financial Officer August 13, 2003
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos OVIEDO-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40193.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern Distinct of Texas.

*272Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Philip G., Gallagher, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Carlos Oviedo-Medina appeals his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for illegal reentry into the United States after having been deported. Oviedo-Medina asserts that the district court erred in concluding that his prior state felony conviction for simple possession of cocaine was an “aggravated felony” for purposes of § 1326(b). Oviedo-Medina’s argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. *See United States v. Rivera,*265 F.3d 310, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2001); *United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez,*130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir.1997).

Oviedo-Medina also argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. This challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Oviedo-Medina contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *AlmendarezTorres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert, denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Oviedo-Medina properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review-

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
HomeAbout NRCHistory

# NRC History References

**Books**

Through the Commission History Program, the origins and evolution of NRC regulatory policies are documented. They are discussed in five volumes of nuclear regulatory history published by the University of California Press. These volumes are:

**NRC History Blogs**
        - REFRESH — Putting the Axe to the 'Scram' Myth
        - Moments in NRC History: Regulating for Safety and Non-Proliferation, Part II
        - Moments in NRC History: Research and Test Reactors Series
        - Penn State University's Breazeale Reactor Celebrates 60 Years
        - CRUD: Another Acronym Bites the Dust
        - NRC Celebrates A Milestone — 40 Years of Safety and Service
        - Part II: Ensuring Safety in the First Temple of the Atom
        - Part I — The First Temple of the Atom: The AEC and the North Carolina State Research Reactor
        - Moments in NRC History: The Founding of the NRC
        - Nuclear Swords into Electric Power Plowshares: The Megatons to Megawatts Program
        - Waves of Uncertainty: The Demise of the Floating Reactor Concept (Part II)
        - Floating Nuclear Power Plants: A Technical Solution to a Land-based Problem (Part I)
        - Before the Browns Ferry Fire: Antiquated Notions That Electricity and Water Didn't Mix
        - Melting Ice with the Peaceful Atom: The NRC and the End of the Cold War
        - The Mystery of the Trowel – Solved
        - The Mystery of the Atomic Energy Commission Trowel — Part I
        - Channeling da Vinci: The Competition to Create the NRC Seal
        - The Reactor Safety Study: The Birth, Death and Rebirth of PRA
        - SATAN's Code: The Early Years of Accident Models
        - Putting the Axe to the 'Scram' Myth
        - Why Does The NRC Have an Official Historian?

For more information on NRC History, contact Thomas Wellock, NRC Historian.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, May 23, 2022

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - NRC History References

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, May 23, 2022
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal No. 04-38] 

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/OPS-ADMIN, (703) 604-6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 04-38 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

Dated: October 4, 2004.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 60374)          ( print page 60375)          ( print page 60376)          ( print page 60377)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. 04-22690 Filed 10-7-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
#### B. Franklin Moss et al., Copartners Trading under the Name of Henry Moss & Co., Respondents, v. Congoleum-Nairn, Inc., Appellant.

Order denying defendant-appellant’s motion to compel plaintiffs to enter partial summary judgment and for cancellation of that judgment upon entry, unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant for the balance unpaid upon the amount awarded plaintiffs as partial summary judgment unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The defendant made tender to plaintiffs and upon refusal deposited the amount thereof in court, pursuant to sections 171-173 of the Civil Practice Act. Plaintiffs were awarded partial summary judgment for that same amount by an order, consented to by defendant, which directed the city treasurer to pay plaintiffs the amount so on deposit with him. Had defendant paid to plaintiff the amount of the award in summary judgment, defendant would then have had to apply for an order directing the city treasurer to repay to it the money so deposited. *(Fleder*v. *ItToin,*294 H. T. 77. See Fourteenth Annual Report of H. T. Judicial Council, 1948, pp. 211-220.) Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ. [See 274 App. Div. 816.]
#### § 417.2 Consultation with contractors.

The Regional Director or his representative will, prior to the beginning of each calendar year, arrange for and conduct such consultations with each Contractor as the Regional Director may deem appropriate as to the making by the Regional Director of annual recommendations relating to water conservation measures and operating practices in the diversion, delivery, distribution and use of Colorado River water, and to the making by the Regional Director of annual determinations of each Contractor's estimated water requirements for the ensuing calendar year to the end that deliveries of Colorado River water to each Contractor will not exceed those reasonably required for beneficial use under the respective Boulder Canyon Project Act contract or other authorization for use of Colorado River water.