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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.____________–Civ–____________/_____________ 

RAYMOND PRICE, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, RAYMOND PRICE, sues Defendant, CARNIVAL CORPORATION, and

alleges:

A. Summary of Case

1. This is a personal-injury/negligence case brought by a cruise-ship passenger

against a cruise line.

B. Basis for Jurisdiction and Venue

2. This case falls within the Court’s maritime jurisdiction.

3. The passenger ticket that the Defendant sold the Plaintiff contains a forumselection clause that says that actions such as this may be filed only in Miami in the United States

District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

C. One Count of Negligence

4. On or about October 16, 2019, the Plaintiff was a fare-paying passenger on the

Carnival Paradise, a cruise ship owned and operated by the Defendant.

5. At that time and place, the Defendant owed the Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care

Case 1:20-cv-22623-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2020 Page 1 of 3
under the circumstances.

6. At that time and place, on or around deck 9, the Defendant breached its duty of

care toward the Plaintiff by positioning a row of lounge chairs in such a way that the chairs

became tripping hazards.

7. The Defendant knew about this hazard or the hazard had existed for a sufficient

length of time that the Defendant should have known about it or this type of hazard occurred

with regularity and was therefore foreseeable.

8. As a result of the Defendant’s negligent placement of the chairs, the Plaintiff

tripped on one of the chairs.

9. When he fell, the Plaintiff suffered bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering,

disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of capacity

for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, loss

of earnings, loss of ability to earn money, and aggravation of a previously existing condition. The

losses are either permanent or continuing and the Plaintiff will suffer these losses in the future. 

10. The Plaintiff has performed all conditions precedent to be performed by him, or

the conditions have occurred.

Therefore, the Plaintiff demands judgment for money-damages against the Defendant.

D. Request for Jury Trial

The Plaintiff demands a jury trial. As to those issues that are not triable by a jury (if any),

the Plaintiff respectfully requests a jury trial under Rule 39 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. 

Dated: June 24, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

David W. Singer (Florida Bar No. 306215)

dsingeresq@aol.com

Case 1:20-cv-22623-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2020 Page 2 of 3
pwalsh@1800askfree.com

David W. Singer & Associates, PA

1011 South Federal Highway

Hollywood, FL 33020

T: (954) 920-1571

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, Raymond Price

Case 1:20-cv-22623-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2020 Page 3 of 3
#### § 4120.5-1 Cooperation in management.

The authorized officer shall, to the extent appropriate, cooperate with Federal, State, Indian tribal and local governmental entities, institutions, organizations, corporations, associations, and individuals to achieve the objectives of this part.

[60 FR 9965, Feb. 22, 1995]
###### Editorial Note on Part 115

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 115 appear at 72 FR 50038, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 115.61 [Reserved]
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION  Pursuant to Section 302 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
David Gladstone, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Gladstone Capital Corporation;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
December 3, 2007

|/s/ DAVID GLADSTONEDavid Gladstone
Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
###### Editorial Note on Part 124

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 124 appear at 72 FR 50040, Aug. 30, 2007, and 76 FR 8253, Feb. 11, 2011.

#### § 124.201 May any business submit an application?

Any concern or any individual on behalf of a business has the right to apply for 8(a) BD program participation whether or not there is an appearance of eligibility.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 20-80993-DIMITROULEAS

TIMOTHY O’BRYAN, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

JOE TAYLOR RESTORATION, INC., a Florida

Corporation, AARON GETTY, individually,

KAREN RADEWICZ, individually, and

GLENDA GALARZA, individually,

Defendants. 

___________________________________/

FINAL JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the conclusion of the trial in this matter and the 

Jury Verdict entered on June 10, 2021. 

Accordingly it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Judgment is hereby entered on behalf of Defendants and against Plaintiff Timothy 

O’Bryan.

2. Plaintiff shall take nothing from Defendants in this action.

3. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida this 

11th day of June, 2021. 

Copies furnished to:

All Counsel of Record

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/11/2021 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 10, 2014

Order 

Clerk

June 10, 2014

147700(55)(56)

INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED 

AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, AND 

AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS 

OF AMERICA, UAW LOCAL 6000,

MICHIGAN CORRECTIONS 

ORGANIZATION SEIU LOCAL 526, 

MICHIGAN PUBLIC EMPLOYEES SEIU 

LOCAL 517M, and MICHIGAN STATE 

EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AFSCME, 

LOCAL 5,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

SC: 147700

v COA: 314781

NINO ERWIN GREEN, EDWARD D.

CALLAGHAN, ROBERT LABRANT,

GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, and 

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motions of plaintiffs-appellants SEIU Local 

517M and MCO for immediate consideration and for an extension of time to file their

reply brief are GRANTED. The reply brief submitted on June 5, 2014 is accepted for 

filing.
### §3303. Value for transfer or obligation

(a) Transaction.—Value is given for a transfer or an obligation if, in exchange for the transfer or obligation, property is transferred or an antecedent debt is secured or satisfied, but value does not include an unperformed promise made otherwise than in the ordinary course of the promisor's business to furnish support to the debtor or another person.

(b) Reasonably Equivalent Value.—For the purposes of sections 3304 and 3307, a person gives a reasonably equivalent value if the person acquires an interest of the debtor in an asset pursuant to a regularly conducted, noncollusive foreclosure sale or execution of a power of sale for the acquisition or disposition of such interest upon default under a mortgage, deed of trust, or security agreement.

(c) Present Value.—A transfer is made for present value if the exchange between the debtor and the transferee is intended by them to be contemporaneous and is in fact substantially contemporaneous.

(Added Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXVI, §3611, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4961.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 180 days after Nov. 29, 1990, and applicable with respect to certain actions for debts owed the United States pending in court on that effective date, see section 3631 of Pub. L. 101–647, set out as a note under section 3001 of this title.
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of
the


Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002





I,  Stephen
Brock, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Public
Company Management Corporation on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2008, 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-KSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Public Company
Management Corporation.





Date:  December
29, 2008





By:
            /s/ Stephen BrockStephen
      Brock,Chief
      Executive Officer





I,  Trae
O'Neil High, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Public
Company Management Corporation on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2008, 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-KSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Public Company
Management Corporation.





Date:  December
29, 2008





By:
            /s/ Trae O'Neil HighTrae
      O'Neil HighChief
      Financial Officer
----

Publication of decisions by Member States to grant or revoke operating licenses pursuant to Article 13(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 on licensing of air carriers (1) (2)

(2005/C 261/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

SWEDEN

Operating licences revoked

Category A:   Operating licences without the restriction of Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92

Category B:   Operating licences including the restriction of Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92

----

(1)OJ No L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 1.

(2)  Communicated to the European Commission before 31.8.2005.

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Steven Jeffrey MULLEN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-7355.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 23, 2006.

Decided: March 2, 2006.

*767Steven Jeffrey Mullen, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 86(c).

PER CURIAM:

Steven J. Mullen, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion seeking relief from his sentence and construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a post-conviction proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability mil not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mullen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
#### § 128.100 What is the purpose of this part?

Section 8127 of Title 38 within the U.S. Code (38 U.S.C. 8127) authorizes certain procurement mechanisms to provide Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns (VOSB) and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns (SDVOSB) with contracting assistance opportunities at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Section 36 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657f) authorizes certain procurement mechanisms to provide SDVOSBs with contracting assistance opportunities across the Federal Government. In addition, sections 36 and 36A of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657f, 657f-1) authorize the Small Business Administration (SBA) to certify the status of VOSB and SDVOSBs. This part implements these mechanisms and ensures that the program created, referred to as the Veteran Small Business Certification Program, is substantially related to this important congressional goal in accordance with applicable law.
In The Matter Of: 

### SERVED: January 6, 2017 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC 

### DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

## Z811 JAN -q 

## A tJ: 

## 03 DOCKET OPERATIONS ) ) ) ) ) DocketNo. FAA-2014-1116 Pacific International Skydiving Center Case No. 2014WP130012 Respondent

ORDER SETTING DEADLINE FOR POSTHEARING BRIEFS The undersignedjudge conducted a hearing in the above captioned case from December 13 to 15, 2016. At the conclusion ofthe hearing, both parties requested permission to submit posthearing briefs once the transcript was received. OnJanuary 5, 2017, the undersignedjudge received the hearing transcript. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.205(a)(6) and 13.231(c), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Eachparty shall submit a posthearing briefno later than 

### February 6, 

### 2017. 1 2. Eachparty'sposthearing briefshall not exceed 

### 15 pages in length.

# :7?~-- DOUGLAS M. RAW ALD Administrative Law Judge
Attachment: Service List

1 See 14 C.F.R. § 13.231(c) (allowing no more than 30 days following receipt ofthe transcript for parties to prepare and submit post hearing briefs). Thirty days from the date ofreceipt ofthe transcript would be Saturday, February 4, 2017. The parties therefore have until the next business day, February 6, 2017, to file their briefs.

### SERVICE LIST

- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl0002


### ONE COPY Robert L. Feldman, Respondent's Counsel 8900 SW 1 07th Avenue, Suite 203 Miami, FL 33176 TEL: 305-598-4841 FAX: 305-598-4842 Don Bobertz, Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AWP-7 Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region P. 

### 0. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-3454 FAX: 310-725-6816 The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2014-1116 (Civil Penalty Action)

2 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
§ 3472.1-3 Acreage limitations. ( a ) ( 1 ) No person, association, or corporation, or any subsidiary, affiliate, or person controlled by or under common control with such person, association, or corporation shall take, hold, own, or control at one time Federal coal leases, lease or lease modification applications, or bids on more than 75,000 acres in any one state and in no case on more than 150,000 acres in the United States.
( 2 ) No person, association, or corporation holding, owning, or controlling leases, lease or lease modification applications or bids (individually or through any subsidiary, affiliate, or person under common control) on more than 150,000 acres in the United States on November 7, 2000, shall be required to relinquish any lease or lease application held on that date. However, it shall not be permitted to hold any additional interests in any further leases or lease applications until such time as its holdings, ownership, or control of leases or applications has been reduced below 150,000 acres within the United States.
( b ) ( 1 ) In computing acreage held, owned or controlled, the accountable acreage of a party holding, owning or controlling an undivided interest in a lease shall be the party's proportionate part of the total lease acreage. Any subsidiary, affiliate or person controlled by or under common control with any corporation, person or association holding, owning or controlling a Federal coal lease shall be charged with lease acreage to the same extent as such corporation, person or association. The accountable acreage of a party holding, owning or controlling an interest in a corporation or association shall be that party's proportionate part of the acreage held, owned or controlled by such corporation or association. However, no party shall be charged with its pro rata share of any acreage held, owned or controlled by any corporation or association unless that party is the beneficial owner of more than 10 percent of the stock or other instruments of ownership or control of such corporation or association.
( 2 ) On acquired lands, if the United States owns only a fractional interest in the coal resources of the lands involved, only that part of the total acreage involved in the lease, proportionate to the extent of ownership by the United States of the coal resources, shall be charged as acreage holdings. The acreage embraced in a future interest lease is not to be charged as acreage holdings until the lease for the future interest takes effect.
[44 FR 42643, July 19, 1979. Redesignated at 44 FR 56340, Oct. 1, 1979, and amended at 47 FR 33150, July 30, 1982; 67 FR 63567, Oct. 15, 2002]
United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Marcy Brooks, Richard Montoure, and 

Samuel Hernandez, on behalf of 

themselves and all others similarly 

situated, Plaintiffs,

v.

Event Entertainment Group, Inc., 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 20-22495-Civ-Scola

Order of Dismissal

The Plaintiffs have dismissed this case with prejudice consistent with

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Not. of Vol. Dismissal, ECF No. 

43; Not. of Vol. Dismissal, ECF No. 44.) The Court directs the Clerk to close

this case. All pending motions are denied as moot.

Done and ordered at Miami, Florida on August 31, 2021.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-22495-RNS Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-cv-21226-ALTMAN/Reid

SYLVIA BREAUX,

Plaintiff,

v.

NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD.,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER

The Defendant filed a Motion to Tax Costs [ECF No. 158]. The Court referred the Motion 

to United States Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid, see [ECF No. 159], who issued a Report and 

Recommendation (the “Report”) [ECF No. 160], suggesting that the Motion be granted, id. at 8. 

Magistrate Judge Reid also warned the parties as follows: 

Objections to this Report may be filed with the district judge within fourteen days of 

receipt of a copy of the Report. Failure to timely file objections will bar a de novo

determination by the district judge of anything in this Report and shall constitute a 

waiver of a party’s “right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on 

unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see also Harrigan v. MetroDade Police Dep’t Station #4, 977 F.3d 1185, 1191–92 (11th Cir. 2020); 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(C).

Ibid. More than fourteen days have passed, and neither side has objected.

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

review that disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). But, 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 that Congress’s

intent was to require de novo review only where objections have been properly filed—and not, as here, 

Case 1:20-cv-21226-RKA Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2022 Page 1 of 2
2

when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It 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)).

The Court has reviewed the Report, the record, and the applicable law, and can find no clear 

error on the face of the Report. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS AND ADJUDGES as 

follows: 

1. The Report [ECF No. 160] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.

2. The Motion [ECF No. 158] is GRANTED.

DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida this 6th day of October 2022. 

 _________________________________

 ROY K. ALTMAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-21226-RKA Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2022 Page 2 of 2
### §540. Investigation of felonious killings of State or local law enforcement officers

The Attorney General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation may investigate felonious killings of officials and employees of a State or political subdivision thereof while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties relating to the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of an offense against the criminal laws of a State or political subdivision, when such investigation is requested by the head of the agency employing the official or employee killed, and under such guidelines as the Attorney General or his designee may establish.

(Added Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7331(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4468.)