alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 130.430 Application decisions. ( a ) New applications will either be accepted or rejected in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in the applicable notice of funding opportunity. The AA/SBDC may approve, or conditionally approve, or deny any new application. The AA/SBDC may approve or conditionally approve or deny a renewal application. The AA/SBDC may also reject a renewal application after following due process in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 130.700. If a renewal application is conditionally approved, the requirements that the recipient organization must meet in order to obtain full and unconditional approval, will be specified as special terms and conditions in the cooperative agreement.
( b ) In the event of a conditional approval, the SBA may fund a recipient organization for one or more specified periods of time up to a maximum of one budget period. If the recipient organization fails to comply with the special terms and conditions of the award to the satisfaction of the AA/SBDC within the allotted time period, the AA/SBDC may suspend, non-renew, or terminate the cooperative agreement with the SBDC, in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 130.700.
[88 FR 76645, Nov. 7, 2023]
#### FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK, Respondent, v. STOLL, Appellant.

(197 N. W. 786.)

(File No. 5485.

Opinion filed March 18, 1924.)

Appeal and Error — Briefs—Court Buies — Judgment Affirmed Where Appeal Abandoned by Failure to File Appeal Bond and Briefs.

Where appellant failed to comply with the statute requiring the filing of appeal bond, and with Supreme Court rules 5, 6, 7, and 13, relating to service and filing of briefs, within the prescribed time, the appeal will be'deemed abandoned, and the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit 'Court, Beadle County; Hon. Alva E. Taylor, Judge.

Action 'b-y the Farmers & Merchants Bank against' Fred Stoll. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Robert*B, *Fisk,*of Gettysburg,- and *W. A. Johns,*of Huron, for Appellant.

*O. S. Hagen*and *A. W. Wiímarth,*both of Huron, for Respondent.

PER CURIAiM.

Notice of appeal in this case was served on respondent, and the same with proof of service filed with the clerk of the circuit court of Beadle county, S. D'., on August 15, 1923; and all*said papers were filed with the clerk of this court *278on August 17, 1923. No undertaking was ever filed, and no briefs or other papers of any kind have been filed with this court. The appellant having utterly failed to comply with the statute requiring the filing of a bond on appeal, and with rules 5, 6, 7, and 13 of this court within the time therein prescribed, the appeal is deemed abandoned, and the judgment and order of the lower ■court are affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 197 N. W. 786. See, Headnote, American Key-Numbered Digest, Appeal and error, Key-Nos. 395, 773 (4), 3 C. J. Sec. 1607, 4 C. J. Sec. 2437.
(No. 911

Claimant awarded $542.77.)

#### Indiana Bridge Company, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 1, 1925.*

*Services*— when *State liadle.*The State is liable for services rendered and material furnished in the erection of its Armory building for the Illinois National Guard.

Sampson and Giffin, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; S. S. DuHamel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim filed to recover for services rendered in connection with the erection of an Armory building for the Illinois National Guard for additional materials, etc., amounting to $542.77 and appearing that the acting supervising architect expresses the opinion' that the claimant is entitled to the award claimed and the Attorney General acting upon the opinion of the said architect consents to the award.

Therefore, it is considered by the court that the claimant be allowed the sum of $542.77.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 7171

DMITRY PRONIN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. LIEUTENANT TROY JOHNSON; OFFICER FLOURNOY; OFFICER MIDDLEBROOK; OFFICER WILSON; OFFICER CRAWFORD; KENNETH ATKINSON; DANIEL FALLEN; REX BLOCKER; LOUISA FUERTES

RASARIO; SANDRA K. LATHROP; JAKE BURKETT; BRANDON BURKETT; JOHN BRYANT; PATINA WALTON

- GRIER; HENRI WALL; EDWARD HAMPTON; WILLIAM JOHNSON; LIEUTENANT EDA OLIVERA

- NEGRON, Operations , Defendants

- Appellees , and
SHU STAFF MEMBERS , Defendant

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Orangeburg

. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 5:12

- cv
- 03416

- DCN )

Submitted : May 28, 2019 Decided: June 12, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ , Circuit Judge , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.2 Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Dmitry Pronin, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Dmitry Pronin appeals from the district court’s order freezing his prison account. Subsequent to his appeal, Pronin filed a motion to unfreeze his funds in district court. After a hearing on April 24, 2019, the district court entered an order on April 29 noting
that Pronin intended to withdraw his motion to unfreeze his funds. Thus, the court denied the motion to unfreeze as moot. In a supplemental brief on appeal, Pronin states that he still wishes to challenge the court’s order. Based on Pronin’s representation in district court, we find that Pronin has waived his challenge to the freezing of his prison account. Thus, we dismiss the appeal as moot. However, we note that the dismissal is without prejudice to Pronin’s renewal of his motion to unfreeze in district court. We dispens e with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### Minnie A. Cary, Appellant, *v.*Arthur L. Cary, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 2d day of March, 1915, denying a motion for a judgment for unpaid alimony and granting the defendant’s motion to annul the provisions for alimony in a decree from the time of plaintiff’s remarriage.

Per Curiam:

The order appealed from should be modified by directing the entry of a judgment for $2,047.50, unpaid alimony up to December 23, 1913, when the application to annul the provisions for alimony by reason of the plaintiff’s remarriage was made, and annulling the provisions for alimony after said date of December S3, 1913, without costs. (See *Mowbray*v. Mowbray, 136 App. Div. 513; *Krauss*v. *Krauss, No.*1,127 id. 740.) Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ. Order modified as stated in opinion, and as modified affirmed, without costs. Order to be settled on notice.
Exhibit
        32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO
 18
        U.S.C.
        SECTION 1350,
 AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
        connection with the Annual Report of Celsia Technologies, Inc. (the "Company")
        on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the
        Securities and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jorge Fernandez,
        Chief
        Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
        adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the
                  Company.
  
 
 /s/
                  Jorge Fernandez
 Jorge
        Fernandez
 Chief
        Financial Officer
 February
        28, 2008
#### In the Matter of Arbitration between Cadillac Textiles Incorporated, Respondent, and Edward Shill et al., Copartners Doing Business under the Name of Shill Bros., Appellants.

No opinion. Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
1

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Unit 82 Joint Venture, Five Star Holding 

Company, Inc., Five Star Holding 

Management, L.L.C. and 1320/1390 Don 

Haskins, LTD,

 Appellants,

v.

Mediacopy Texas, Inc., a Delaware 

Corporation, and Infodisc Global Holding, 

Inc., a Delaware Corporation and 

International Commercial Bank of China,

 Appellees.

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-08-00159-CV

Appeal from the

327th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2005-1987)

O R D E R

International Commercial Bank of China (ICB) has filed a motion to consolidate cause 

numbers 08-08-00159-CV and 08-13-00088-CV. In its motion, ICB “gives notice that Appeal 

No. 08-08-00159-CV can now proceed following remand to the trial court”. ICB also asserts 

that we dismissed the appeal in cause number 08-08-00159-CV, but the opinion and judgment 

reflect that the Court vacated the trial court’s judgment and dismissed the case below, not the 

appeal. Unit 82 Joint Venture v. Mediacopy Texas, Inc., 349 S.W.3d 42 (Tex.App.--El Paso 

2010). The Supreme Court held that it was error to vacate the trial court’s judgment and it 

reversed this Court’s judgment. Evans v. Unit 82 Joint Venture, 377 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. 2012). 

Ordinarily, the Supreme Court would remand the cause to this Court in order for the appeal to 

resume. Rather than remanding the cause to this Court, thereby returning jurisdiction of cause 

number 08-08-00159-CV to the court of appeals, the Supreme Court remanded directly to the 

trial court for “further proceedings.” 
2

The Court has determined that it is necessary to address whether the Court has 

jurisdiction of cause number 08-08-00159-CV before it considers the motions to consolidate 

filed in cause numbers 08-08-00159-CV and 08-13-00088-CV. The Court requests that the 

parties address whether this Court has jurisdiction of cause number 08-08-00159-CV, and more 

specifically, whether it has jurisdiction to address the issues raised in that appeal. The response 

can be in the form of a letter brief and is due with this Court within 15 days from the date of this 

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of May, 2013.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 28, 2011 

p1219 

Order 

 

December 28, 2011 

143777 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143777 

 COA: 305349 

Washtenaw CC: 10-000143-FH 

ANTHONY ROBINSON, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 15, 2011 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5135 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prohibit the Securities 

and Exchange Commission from requiring an issuer to disclose information relating to certain greenhouse gas emissions, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 28, 2022 

Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself and Mr. BRAUN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prohibit 

the Securities and Exchange Commission from requiring 

an issuer to disclose information relating to certain 

greenhouse gas emissions, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect Farmers from 

5 the SEC Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 5135 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING AN ISSUER TO DIS2 CLOSE INFORMATION RELATING TO CERTAIN 

3 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. 

4 Section 23 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

5 (15 U.S.C. 78w) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(e) PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING AN ISSUER TO

8 DISCLOSE INFORMATION RELATING TO CERTAIN GREEN9 HOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.— 

10 ‘‘(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection: 

11 ‘‘(A) AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT.—The term 

12 ‘agricultural product’ has the meaning given the 

13 term in section 207 of the Agricultural Mar14 keting Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1626). 

15 ‘‘(B) DOWNSTREAM ACTIVITIES.—The 

16 term ‘downstream activities’ includes activities 

17 that relate to processing materials into a fin18 ished product and delivering that product or 

19 providing a service to the end user. 

20 ‘‘(C) GREENHOUSE GAS.—The term 

21 ‘greenhouse gas’ means— 

22 ‘‘(i) carbon dioxide; 

23 ‘‘(ii) methane; 

24 ‘‘(iii) nitrous oxide; 

25 ‘‘(iv) nitrogen trifluoride; 

26 ‘‘(v) hydrofluorocarbons; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 5135 IS

1 ‘‘(vi) perfluorocarbons; or 

2 ‘‘(vii) sulfur hexafluoride. 

3 ‘‘(D) UPSTREAM ACTIVITIES.—The term 

4 ‘upstream activities’ includes activities that re5 late to the initial stages of producing a good or 

6 service. 

7 ‘‘(2) PROHIBITION.—The Commission may not 

8 require an issuer to disclose greenhouse gas emis9 sions from upstream activities or downstream activi10 ties in the value chain of the issuer from the produc11 tion, manufacturing, or harvesting of an agricultural 

12 product. 

13 ‘‘(3) NONAPPLICABILITY OF EXEMPTIVE AU14 THORITY.—Section 36 shall not apply to this sub15 section.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


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


         In connection with the quarterly report of Willbros Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Warren
L. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

         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: November 21, 2005                     /s/ Warren L. Williams
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Warren L. Williams
                                            Chief Financial Officer



                                       40
EXHIBIT 32.1: CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

      In connection with the accompanying Quarterly report on Form 10-Q of
Magna-Lab, Inc. for the quarter ended May 31, 2009, the undersigned hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

      (1)   such Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 31,
            2009 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 such Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for
            the quarter ended May 31, 2009 fairly presents, in all material
            respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
            Magna-Lab, Inc.


July 10, 2009                     /s/ Lawrence A. Minkoff
                                  -----------------------
                                  Name:  Lawrence A. Minkoff
                                  Title: President (principal executive officer)
M&I 2012 Sch A-10 F.Z14.XLSM

12/7/2011

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

SCHEDULE OF M&I ESTIMATED PROJECT USE ENERGY COSTS

STORAGE, CONVEYANCE, AND OUT-OF-BASIN PUMPING

2012 M&I WATER RATES

B C D E F G H I 

Storage Pumping Conveyance Pumping 

Facility/Contractor Ref <Sch A-12> <Sch A-12> <Sch A-12> <Sch A-12> <Sch A-12> <Sch A-12> <Sch A-12> <Sch A-12> Delta-Mendota Canal

 Byron-Bethany ID 706 706 City of Tracy 7,349 7,349 Del Puerto WD 20 20 Department of Veterans Affairs 157 157 Panoche WD - DMC 25 25 San Luis WD - DMC 143 143 Total DMC 8,400 8,400Delta-Mendota Exchange 70,498 70,498

Folsom Dam & Reservoir

 City of Roseville 31,260 31,260 Sacramento County WD 4,970 4,970 San Juan WD 5,688 5,688 Total Folsom D&R 41,918 41,918

A

O'Neill PumpGen Plt Jones Pump Plant 

Projected Deliveries Columbia Mowry Folsom Pump Plant

Gianelli WR 

Pump-Gen 

Plt

SFU Gianelli 

WR PGP

Dos Amigos 

Pump Plant
M&I 2012 Sch A-10 F.Z14.XLSM

12/7/2011

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

SCHEDULE OF M&I ESTIMATED PROJECT USE ENERGY COSTS

STORAGE, CONVEYANCE, AND OUT-OF-BASIN PUMPING

2012 M&I WATER RATES

B C D E F G H I 

Storage Pumping Conveyance Pumping 

Facility/Contractor Ref <Sch A-12> <Sch A-12> <Sch A-12> <Sch A-12> <Sch A-12> <Sch A-12> <Sch A-12> <Sch A-12> 

A

O'Neill PumpGen Plt Jones Pump Plant 

Projected Deliveries Columbia Mowry Folsom Pump Plant

Gianelli WR 

Pump-Gen 

Plt

SFU Gianelli 

WR PGP

Dos Amigos 

Pump Plant

San Luis Canal - Fresno 1/ City of Avenal 2,488 1,742 2,488 2,488 2,488 City of Coalinga 6,523 4,566 6,523 6,523 6,523 City of Huron 1,220 854 1,220 1,220 1,220 State of CA 9 6 9 9 9 Westlands WD 2,911 2,038 2,911 2,911 2,911 Total SLC - Fresno 13,151 9,206 13,151 13,151 13,151San Luis Canal - Tracy 1/ Pacheco WD -SLC 12 8 12 12 12 Panoche WD - SLC 56 39 56 56 56 San Luis WD - SLC 620 434 29 2/ 620 620 Total SLC - Tracy 688 482 97 688 688San Felipe Unit San Benito County WD 3,509 3,509 3,509 3,509  Santa Clara Valley WD 101,906 101,906 101,906 101,906  Total SFU 105,415 105,415 105,415 105,415  Total Deliveries 240,071 41,918 9,688 105,415 13,248 119,254 198,152  Estimated 2012 Project Use Energy Costs 1,517.60 $ 41,643.61 $ 67,617.55 $ 735,774.75 $ 42,006.93 $ 207,651.34 $ 1,201,751.72 $ 

 Less - Regeneration Credit 

 Gianelli WR Pump-Gen Plt (48,130) $ - $ 

 O'Neill Pump-Gen Plt - $ (5,248) $ 

 Net Project Use Energy Costs 19,487 $ 202,403 $ 
M&I 2012 Sch A-10 F.Z14.XLSM

12/7/2011

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

SCHEDULE OF M&I ESTIMATED PROJECT USE ENERGY COSTS

STORAGE, CONVEYANCE, AND OUT-OF-BASIN PUMPING

2012 M&I WATER RATES

FOOTNOTES

1/ According to MP-2810 (CB 06/93) only 70% of San Luis Canal Deliveries are stored in B.F.Sisk San Luis Reservoir

and, therefore, require pumping by the WR Gianelli Pump-Generator.

2/ Excludes estimated San Luis WD deliveries before Dos Amigos. Refer to M&I Sch. A-11.xls.3/ Only 50% of Santa Clara Valley WD's deliveries require pumping through Coyote PP.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Insightful Corporation for
the quarter ended March 31, 2007, I, Richard P. Barber, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Insightful Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(1) such Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Insightful Corporation.



/s/ RICHARD P. BARBERRichard P. BarberChief Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer)


May 15, 2007
#### Arthur S. Beves v. Mary E. Post, as Executrix, etc.

Motion for stay denied, with ten dollars costs. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case No. 1:20-cv-22613-JEM

HELEN SWARTZ, Individually,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CG FAIRWINDS LLC,

a Florida Limited Liability Company, 

and LENNOX MIAMI CORP.,

a Florida Corporation,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

COMES NOW Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, and informs the Court that 

the matter has been amicably settled between the Parties, subject to execution of the settlement 

agreement and receipt of settlement funds, and hereby requests: that pursuant to a Court Order, 

the case be dismissed subject to the right of any party to move the Court within sixty (60) days 

for the purpose of entering a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice, or, on good cause 

shown, to re-open the case for further proceedings.

Dated: November 17, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Lawrence A. Fuller

Lawrence A. Fuller, Esq. (FBN 0180470)

Fuller, Fuller & Associates, P.A.

12000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 502

North Miami, FL 33181 

Telephone: (305) 891-5199

Facsimile: (305) 893-9505

Email: lfuller@fullerfuller.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-22613-JEM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2020 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 17th day of November, 2020, the foregoing was filed 

via the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will automatically notice Counsel for the Defendant: 

Rene J. Gonzalez-Llorens, Esq.

Douglas M. Kramer, Esq.

Shutts & Bowen, LLP

200 S. Biscayne Boulevard – Suite 4100

Miami, FL 33131

rgl@shutts.com

dkramer@Shutts.com

/s/ Lawrence A. Fuller

Lawrence A. Fuller, Esq. (FBN 0180470)

Fuller, Fuller & Associates, P.A.

12000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 502

North Miami, FL 33181 

Telephone: (305) 891-5199

Facsimile: (305) 893-9505

Email: lfuller@fullerfuller.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-22613-JEM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2020 Page 2 of 2
Docket No: FAA - 2015 - 8470 Dir ID: 2013 - NM - 199 - AD