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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

UNIR, LLC, a Florida limited liability

company, and MARCONI 

INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, INC., Case No.: 1:20-cv-22508-JEM

a Florida corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LAURA RICCI, a foreign national, and 

MIA GLOBAL BUSINESS SCHOOL,

S.L. d/b/a MIA DIGITAL UNIVERSITY,

a foreign entity, 

Defendants

_____________________________________

PLAINTIFF MARCONI INTERNATIONAL UNIVERITY, INC.’S 

NOTICE OF MOOTNESS OF REQUEST TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ 

SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MIA GLOBAL BUSINESS

SCHOOL’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff Marconi International University, Inc. (“Marconi”), hereby gives notice that its 

request that its Motion to Strike Defendant MIA Global Business School, S.L. d/b/a MIA Digital 

University’s Supplemental Reply to Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [ECF No. 77] is hereby moot, pursuant to MIA Global 

Business School S.L. d/b/a MIA Digital University’s (“MIA”) filing of a Notice of Striking its 

Supplemental Reply [ECF No. 78].

However, for the reasons outlined in Plaintiff’s Motion [ECF No. 77], Plaintiff requests

that this Court rule on its request for sanctions for MIA’s flagrant and repeated violation of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida.

Case 1:20-cv-22508-JEM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 1 of 2
2

Dated: March 18, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

SANCHEZ FISCHER LEVINE, LLP

1200 Brickell Avenue, Ste. 750 

Miami, Florida 33131

Tel.: (305) 925-9947

By: /s/ Fausto Sanchez 

Fausto Sanchez, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 86229

Email: fsanchez@sfl-law.com

David M. Levine, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 84431

Email: dlevine@sfl-law.com

Chad S. Purdie, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 41965

Email: cpurdie@sfl-law.com

Antonia Iragorri, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 1025034

Email: airagorri@sfl-law.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 18, 2021, a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

was filed electronically and served on all parties of record via the Court’s CM/ECF system.

By: /s/ Fausto Sanchez 

Fausto Sanchez, Esq. 

Case 1:20-cv-22508-JEM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,414
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              75
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     52,014
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        147,151
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,065
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 212,830
<DEPOSITS>                                     126,098
<SHORT-TERM>                                    63,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,491
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            18
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,724
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 212,830
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,056
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  844
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    67
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,967
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,491
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,406
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,561
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      120
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  30
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,002
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    749
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         749
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       481
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.14
<LOANS-NON>                                        918
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,100
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   983
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       43
<RECOVERIES>                                         5
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,065
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,065
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
                                              

</TABLE>
### §651. Deduction for trusts distributing current income only

#### (a) Deduction

In the case of any trust the terms of which—

(1) provide that all of its income is required to be distributed currently, and

(2) do not provide that any amounts are to be paid, permanently set aside, or used for the purposes specified in section 642(c) (relating to deduction for charitable, etc., purposes),

there shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the taxable income of the trust the amount of the income for the taxable year which is required to be distributed currently. This section shall not apply in any taxable year in which the trust distributes amounts other than amounts of income described in paragraph (1).

#### (b) Limitation on deduction

If the amount of income required to be distributed currently exceeds the distributable net income of the trust for the taxable year, the deduction shall be limited to the amount of the distributable net income. For this purpose, the computation of distributable net income shall not include items of income which are not included in the gross income of the trust and the deductions allocable thereto.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 219.)
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 129992 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129992 COA: 265307 Genesee CC: 04-013722-FH JUAN JOSEPH MIRELES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 18, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0322 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 29, 2006

Clerk
### §506. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 506 was editorially reclassified as section 5206 of this title.
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

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Science Board Task Force on Identification Technologies will meet in closed session on November 4-5, 2004, at Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA. The Task Force will assess current technologies and operational concepts to identify and track individuals and materiel.

The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. In this assessment, the task force's investigation will encompass defense, intelligence, and commercial systems, including compartmented technology in development and promising technologies in the lab that are not yet deployed. Technologies will include passive/active, line of sight/non-line of sight, and cooperative/non-cooperative. Potential mechanisms include predictive behavior modeling based on threat characteristics (attack modality, ideological makeup, social, ethnic, religious and political tendencies, etc.), identification technologies such as biometrics (iris scans, facial features, voice prints, etc.), DNA matching, and advanced non-identification technologies such as EO, RF, hyperspectral, and fluid surface assembly (FSA) sensors.

In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the meetings will be closed to the public.

Dated: October 8, 2004.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 04-23113 Filed 10-14-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
EXHIBIT 99.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 IV, L.P.
(the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended March 31, 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 the Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of his 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 result of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|/s/ LEO F. WELLS,
III                               
|----------------------------------------------------
|Leo F. Wells, IIIChief Executive Officer May 9, 2003
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear at 68 FR 51349, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 117.12 Mediation. ( a ) SBA shall, after ensuring that the complaint falls within the coverage of this Act and all information necessary for further processing is contained therein, unless the age distinction complained of is clearly within an exception, promptly refer the complaint to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS).
( b ) SBA shall, to the extent possible, require the participation of the recipient and the complainant in the mediation process in an effort to reach a mutually satisfactory settlement of the complaint or make an informed judgment that an agreement is not possible. Both parties need not meet with the mediator at the same time.
( c ) If the complainant and the recipient reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the complaint during the mediation period, the mediator shall prepare a written statement of the agreement and have the complainant and recipient sign it.
( d ) A copy of the written mediation agreement will be referred to SBA, and no further action will be taken unless it appears that either the complainant or the recipient (or other alleged discriminator subject to this part) fails to comply with the agreement.
( e ) If at the end of 60 days after the receipt of a complaint by SBA, or at any time prior thereto, an agreement is reached or the mediator determines an agreement cannot be reached through mediation, the agreement or complaint will be returned to SBA.
( f ) This 60-day period may be extended by the mediator, with the concurrence of SBA for not more than 30 days if the mediator determines that an agreement will likely be reached during the extended period.
( g ) The mediator shall protect the confidentiality of all information obtained in the course of the mediation process. No mediator shall testify in any adjudicative proceeding, produce any document, or otherwise disclose any information obtained during the course of the mediation process without prior approval of the head of the agency appointing the mediator.
### §1732. Record made in regular course of business; photographic copies

If any business, institution, member of a profession or calling, or any department or agency of government, in the regular course of business or activity has kept or recorded any memorandum, writing, entry, print, representation or combination thereof, of any act, transaction, occurrence, or event, and in the regular course of business has caused any or all of the same to be recorded, copied, or reproduced by any photographic, photostatic, microfilm, micro-card, miniature photographic, or other process which accurately reproduces or forms a durable medium for so reproducing the original, the original may be destroyed in the regular course of business unless its preservation is required by law. Such reproduction, when satisfactorily identified, is as admissible in evidence as the original itself in any judicial or administrative proceeding whether the original is in existence or not and an enlargement or facsimile of such reproduction is likewise admissible in evidence if the original reproduction is in existence and available for inspection under direction of court. The introduction of a reproduced record, enlargement, or facsimile does not preclude admission of the original. This subsection 1 shall not be construed to exclude from evidence any document or copy thereof which is otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 945; Aug. 28, 1951, ch. 351, §§1, 3, 65 Stat. 205, 206; Pub. L. 87–183, Aug. 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 413; Pub. L. 93–595, §2(b), Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §695 (June 20, 1936, ch. 640, §1, 49 Stat. 1561).

Changes in phraseology were made.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1975—Pub. L. 93–595 struck out subsec. (a) which had made admissible as evidence writings or records made as a memorandum or record of any act, transaction, occurrence, or event if made in the regular course of business, and struck out designation "(b)" preceding remainder of section. See Federal Rules of Evidence set out in Appendix to this title.

1961—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 87–183 struck out "unless held in a custodial or fiduciary capacity or" after "may be destroyed in the regular course of business".

1951—Act Aug. 29, 1951, §3, inserted reference to photographic copies in section catchline.

Subsecs. (a), (b). Act Aug. 28, 1951, §1, designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

1 So in original. Probably should be "section".
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 on Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund VII, L.P. (the Registrant) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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   
|May 10, 2004              
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS
|Douglas P. Williams       
|Chief Financial Officer   
|May 10, 2004
#### Winthrop Products Corporation et al., Appellants, v. Bernard Damsky et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Winthrop Products Corporation et al., Appellants, v. Bernard Damsky et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)

Per *Curiam.*

The *“*First Separate and Distinct Defense, and as a First Counterclaim ” in Action No. 1 is not good as a defense or counterclaim.

It cannot be a defense to the first count in the complaint, which is a suit on a Massachusetts judgment, as there is no claim that the judgment is not entitled to recognition under the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution (art. IV, § 1). It is not a defense to the second count against defendant, Damsky, for work, labor and services. No allegation is contained in the defense that section C of article V of the agreement dated August 16, 1946, is not binding on the parties, nor is there any denial of liability on this count in the defense. The third and fourth counts grow out of plaintiff Winthrop Products Corporation’s use and occupancy of the leased factory buildings at Turners Falls, Massachusetts. There is no apparent or conceivable connection between the allegations contained in the first defense and these two counts.

The counterclaim is asserted by defendant, Elite Wood Products Corp., for damages it claims to have suffered because of the fraud and connivance of the plaintiffs, which rendered worthless its 1100 shares of preferred stock in plaintiff Winthrop Products Corporation. Elite Wood Products Corp. as an individual stockholder has no right of action in its own behalf against one who had injured the corporation. Waste and mismanagement, such as are alleged in the counterclaim here, are wrongs to the corporation and must be redressed by or on behalf of the corporation.

The defense and counterclaim as pleaded in Action No. 2 are sufficient as it is alleged therein that the contract of August 16, 1946, does not express the true agreement of the parties due to mistake and fraud and that reformation to conform to the true agreement of the parties is therefore sought. *(Susquehanna S. S. Co.*v. *Andersen & Co.,*239 N. Y. 285.)

In Action No. 1 the order should be reversed and the motion to dismiss the first counterclaim and to strike out the first defense of the defendants Bernard Damsky and Elite Wood Products Corp. granted.

In Action No. 2 the order should be affirmed.

Grlennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Order appealed from in Action No. 1 unanimously reversed and the motion to dismiss the first counterclaim and to strike out the first defense of the defendants Bernard Damsky and Elite Wood Products Corp. granted; order appealed from in Action No. 2 unanimously affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         142,792
<SECURITIES>                                18,331,929
<RECEIVABLES>                                  477,890
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   857
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,953,468
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          449,998
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,503,470
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,953,468
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               535,303
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,609
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                479,694
<INCOME-TAX>                                   479,694
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            479,694
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   479,694
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

#### Contact Us

Thing to Do

# Art in the Park

Weir Farm National Historical Park