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

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION

Civil Action No. 0:20-cv-61321-WPD

DAVID “RYAN” McCAIGUE, an individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DOENCH WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC; 

and BRIAN H. DOENCH, an individual,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF FILING PROPOSED 

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 

ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(2), Defendants Doench Wealth Management, LLC and 

Brian H. Doench, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby submit the attached proposed 

Order Granting their Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Complaint 

[D.E. 6].

Case 0:20-cv-61321-WPD Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2020 Page 1 of 3
2

Dated: July 22, 2020 MCGUIREWOODS LLP

By: /s/ Kimberly T. Mydock 

 Kimberly T. Mydock (FL Bar No. 100571)

 kmydock@mcguirewoods.com

 50 North Laura Street, Suite 3300

 Jacksonville, FL 32202-3661

 Telephone: 904-798-3200

 Facsimile: 904-798-3207

Larissa LPC Sneathern (pro hac vice forthcoming)

 lsneathern@mcguirewoods.com

 652 Peter Jefferson Parkway

 Suite 350

 Charlottesville, VA 22911

 Telephone: 434-977-2593

 Facsimile: 434-980-2222

Attorneys and Trial Counsel for Defendants Doench 

Wealth Management, LLC and Brian H. Doench

Case 0:20-cv-61321-WPD Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2020 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 22, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to 

the following:

David Silver, Esq.

D.Silver@SilverMillerLaw.com

11780 W. Sample Road

Coral Springs, Florida 33066

Attorney for Plaintiff David “Ryan” McCaigue

/s/ Kimberly T. Mydock 

Case 0:20-cv-61321-WPD Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2020 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23071]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property 
Release at Manteo Airport, Manteo, North Carolina

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. section 47153(d), 
notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the 
Dare County Airport Authority to waive the requirement that a 1.123 
acre parcel of surplus property, located at the Manteo Airport, be used 
for aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 15, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in 
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports 
District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Campus Building, Suite 2-260, 
College Park, GA 30337.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Ms. Norma Mills, Dare County Attorney, at the 
following address: County of Dare, P.O. Box 1000, Manteo, NC 27954.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rusty Nealis, Program Manager, Atlanta 
Airports District Office, 1701 Columbus Ave., Campus Bldg., Suite 2-
260, College Park, GA 30337, (404) 305-7142. The application may be 
reviewed in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by Dare 
County Airport Authority to release 1.123 acres of surplus property at 
the Manteo Airport. The property will be exchanged for private property 
which is needed for the expansion of the Manteo Elementary School. The 
Dare County Board of Commissioners will provide funds equivalent to the 
fair market value of the land to the Dare County Airport Authority. 
These funds will be used for airport purposes only. The property fronts 
Driftwood Drive and is adjacent to existing Dare County facilities.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office 
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, any 
person may, upon request, inspect the request, notice and other 
documents germane to the request in person at the Dare County 
Attorney's Office.

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia on October 5, 2004.
Scott L. Seritt,
Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 04-23071 Filed 10-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
§1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Allegro Biodiesel Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, W.
Bruce Comer III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.§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.





/s/
      W. Bruce Comer IIIW.
      Bruce Comer IIIChief
      Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer and Principal
              Financial
      and Accounting Officer)November
      12, 2009





A signed
original of the written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
EPA SLN No. KS-070003 






















*Inert ingredient information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
*Inert ingredient information may be entitled to confidential treatment*


*Inert ingredient information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
# Power Reactor

&"Arial,Bold"Mission Direct Budgeted Resources Allocated to Power Reactors Fee Class	

&D		Page &P of &N

# Spent Fuel Storage&Reactor Dec.

&"Arial,Bold"Mission Direct Budgeted Resources Allocated to Spent Fuel Storage/Reactor Decommissioning Fee Class	

&D		Page &P of &N

# NPUF

&"Arial,Bold"Mission Direct Budgeted Resources forNon-Power Production or Utilization Facilities Fee Class&"Arial,Regular" 	

&D		Page &P of &N

# Fuel Facility

&"Arial,Bold"Mission Direct Budgeted Resources forFuel Facilities Fee Class &"Arial,Regular"	

&D		Page &P of &N

# Materials

&"Arial,Bold"Mission Direct Budgeted Resources for Materials Fee Class	

&D		Page &P of &N

# Transportation

&"Arial,Bold"Mission Direct Budgeted Resources for Transportation Fee Class	

&D		Page &P of &N

# Rare

Mission Direct Resources For  Rare Earth Fee Class	

&D		&P

# Uranium Recovery

&"Arial,Bold"Mission Direct Budgeted Resources forUranium Recovery Fee Class	

&D		Page &P of &N

# Import-Export

&"Arial,Bold"Mission Direct Budgeted Resources Allocated toImport-Export Fee Class	

&D		Page &P of &N

# Generic LLW

&"Arial,Bold"Mission Direct Budgeted Resources Allocated toGeneric Low Level Waste Surcharge Category	

&D		Page &P of &N

# Corp

Agency Support (Corporate Support and the IG): Budgeted Resources for Professional Hourly Rate Calculation	

# Program

Mission Program Indirect Budgeted Resources for Professional Hourly Rate Calculation
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the *

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

F I LED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 11, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee, No. 06-2287

v. (D.C. No. CR-06-821 JP)

FARAON ROBLEDO–RIVERA, (D.N.M.)

Defendant–Appellant.

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

*

Before BRISCOE, McKAY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal re-entry of a deported alien previously

convicted of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1), (a)(2),

and (b)(2). Defendant was sentenced to fifty-seven months’ imprisonment, the

bottom of the applicable advisory Guidelines’ range. Defendant challenges the

length of his sentence.

Defense counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of

that motion in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Counsel asserts that Defendant’s ground for appeal is without merit and that there
-2-

are no other non-frivolous issues for appeal. 

We agree with counsel that the district court correctly calculated the

Guidelines’ range and imposed a reasonable sentence. Although Defendant did

argue at sentencing that he “was fooled and deceived” about the possible length

of his sentence and “need[ed] another lawyer” as a result (Sent’g Hr’g at 4), there

is no evidence in the record to support that allegation. There was extensive

examination at the plea hearing regarding Defendant’s understanding of the

charge and possible sentence ranges applicable as a result of his criminal history. 

Defendant acknowledged that those ranges were only a “best guess” (Plea Hr’g at

12) and that at sentencing he could “get a more severe sentence” (id. at 13). 

Defendant also stated that he was satisfied with his attorney’s representation and

had knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty after adequate discussion with his

attorney. At sentencing, Defendant reconfirmed his statements of guilt and

acknowledged that his offense level and criminal history category were properly

calculated. In addition, the sentencing court considered Defendant’s history of

robbery, the pre-sentence report, and the § 3553 factors before sentencing

Defendant at the bottom of the correctly-calculated Guidelines’ range. 

After fully examining the record and considering the Anders brief filed by

Defendant’s counsel, we conclude that there are no non-frivolous issues upon

which Defendant may base his appeal. We can discern no basis for challenging

his guilty plea or his sentence. We therefore GRANT counsel’s motion to
-3-

withdraw and AFFIRM the judgment and sentence.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
#### §§ 206.165-206.170 [Reserved]
### §1354. Land grants from different states

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of actions between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants from different states.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 934.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §41(1) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §24, par. 1, 36 Stat. 1091; May 14, 1934, ch. 283, §1, 48 Stat. 775; Aug. 21, 1937, ch. 726, §1, 50 Stat. 738; Apr. 20, 1940, ch. 117, 54 Stat. 143).

Other provisions of section 41(1) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., are incorporated in sections 1331, 1332, 1341, 1342, 1345, and 1359 of this title.

Changes were made in phraseology.
(No. 37219.

#### Harold Carr, Plaintiff in Error, *vs.*The Industrial Commission *et al.*—(International Harvester Company Parts Depot, Defendant in Error.)

*Opinion filed November*30, *1962.*

Katz & Friedman, of Chicago, (Harold A. Katz, Irving M. Friedman, Jerome Schur, Arthur Brody, and Oscar D’Angelo, of counsel,) for plaintiff in error.

Gifford, Moore, Roddy & Power, of Chicago, (Robert M. Moore, of counsel,) for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Daily

delivered the opinion of the court:

The sole issue here is whether injuries sustained by an employee, who fell at quitting time on an icy parking lot maintained by his employer immediately adjacent to a factory building, are compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Industrial Commission, setting aside an award by an arbitrator, held that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment and, upon review, the decision of the Commission was affirmed by the circuit court of Cook County. We have granted the employee’s petition for writ of error.

In *DeHoyos*v. *Industrial Com.*26 Ill.2d 110, in which an opinion was filed at the September, 1962, term, we reaffirmed our view that where an employee is injured on company property while going to or leaving work, such *348injuries are compensable. (See also: *Indian Hill Club*v. *Industrial Com.*309 Ill. 271; *Wabash Railway Co.*v. *Industrial Com.*294 Ill. 119.) What was said there is determinative of the issue in the present case.

Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to that court to remand the same to the Commission for affirmance of the arbitrator’s award.

*Reversed and*remanded, *with directions.*
Document

Exhibit 10.3
Veeva Systems Inc.
Non-Employee Director Compensation Plan
(Effective as of November 14, 2020)
Each non-employee member of the Board receives an annual cash retainer of $50,000, paid in quarterly installments.
Non-employee members of the Board also receive grants of RSUs under our 2013 Equity Incentive Plan on the date of our annual meeting of stockholders. Such annual grants are valued on the date of grant and vest quarterly over one year. On the date of each annual meeting of stockholders, each non-employee director who is serving on the Board as of such date will be issued RSUs valued at $200,000 of our Class A common stock. In addition, the non-executive chairman or lead independent director will receive an additional issuance of RSUs valued at $50,000 of our Class A common stock.
Non-employee members of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, and Nominating and Governance Committee are granted additional RSUs as follows.
•Audit Committee
◦Members: RSUs valued at $25,000
◦Chair: RSUs valued at $50,000
•Compensation Committee
◦Members: RSUs valued at $12,500
◦Chair: RSUs valued at $25,000
•Nominating and Governance Committee
◦Members: RSUs valued at $5,000
◦Chair: RSUs valued at $12,500
New directors and new committee members will receive cash and equity compensation on a pro-rated basis to coincide with our annual director compensation period, which begins in the month of our annual meeting of stockholders.
We also have a policy of paying for regulatory filing fees related to ownership of Veeva stock and reimbursing directors for their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending Board and committee meetings.
Exhibit 32.1

 

**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 TransAlta Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen G. Snyder, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| /s/   Stephen G. Snyder                 |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| Stephen   G. Snyder                     |
| President   and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                    |
| Dated:   February 24, 2011.        |

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----
#### 1175 De Kalb Avenue Company, Inc., Respondent, v. Thomas A. Clarke, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Mo opinion. Jenks, P. J., Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
EPA VERR #3646, 4136, 4142EPA VERR #3646, 4136, 4142 4136EPA VERR #3646, 4136, 4142EPA VERR #3646, 4136, 4142
United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Daniel Cohen, Plaintiff

v.

Citibank, N.A., Defendant

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 20-22793-Civ-Scola

Order of Dismissal

The Plaintiff failed to timely serve the Defendant in this case. The Plaintiff 

filed his complaint on July 7, 2020, and was responsible for serving the 

Defendant(s) with a summons and complaint by October 5, 2020. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 4(c)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Previously, the Court notified the Plaintiff, in 

keeping with Rule 4(m), that the Court would dismiss this case without 

prejudice unless the Plaintiff established, by October 27, 2020, that he served 

the Defendant timely or that good cause existed for his failure to timely serve 

the Defendant. He did neither.

Additionally, the Court has also “consider[ed] whether any other 

circumstances warrant an extension of time based on the facts of the case.” 

Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cty. Comm’rs, 476 F.3d 1277, 1282 (11th Cir. 

2007). The Court does not discern any such factor nor does the Plaintiff offer 

one. For example, it appears no “applicable statute of limitations would bar the 

refiled action”; nor does it appear that “the defendant is evading service or 

conceals a defect in attempted service.” Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), Advisory 

Committee Note, 1993 Amendments.) Further, even if such circumstances were 

present, the Court, based on the record in this case, would nonetheless decline 

to exercise its discretion to afford the Plaintiff an extension of time to serve the 

Defendant.

Consequently, because the Plaintiff has not established good cause for 

his failure to serve and because an extension of the time to do so is not 

warranted, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice, and directs the 

Clerk of the Court to close the case.

Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on October 28, 2020.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-22793-RNS Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/29/2020 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5095 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5095

To establish a pilot program to address hunger among older individuals 
                     and adults with disabilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 15, 2022

   Mr. Casey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To establish a pilot program to address hunger among older individuals 
                     and adults with disabilities.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Tools for Ensuring Access to Meals 
Act'' or the ``TEAM Act''.

SEC. 2. INTERAGENCY COLLABORATIVE AND INNOVATION PILOT PROGRAM.

    Section 201 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3011) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(h)(1) In this subsection:
            ``(A) The term `Center' means the Research, Demonstration, 
        and Evaluation Center for the Aging Network described in 
        subsection (g).
            ``(B) The term `Director' means the Director of the Center.
    ``(2) The Director shall establish, in fiscal year 2026, an 
Interagency Collaborative and Innovation Pilot Program to Address 
Hunger and Promote Access to Healthy Food Among Older Adults and Adults 
with Disabilities (referred to in this subsection as the `pilot 
program').
    ``(3) The Director shall carry out the pilot program through the 
Center.
    ``(4) The Director shall carry out the pilot program to address 
hunger among, including promoting access to healthy food for, older 
individuals and adults with disabilities by--
            ``(A) implementing best practices for addressing food 
        insecurity, including by promoting access to healthy, 
        affordable, and local or regional food among older individuals 
        and adults with disabilities;
            ``(B) seeking recommendations from Federal agencies about 
        how to support interagency collaboration to address food 
        insecurity;
            ``(C) implementing innovative practices to address food 
        insecurity; and
            ``(D) evaluating the impact of subparagraphs (A) through 
        (C) on addressing food insecurity.
    ``(5) In carrying out the pilot program, the Director shall provide 
funding for demonstration projects, evaluation, and research related to 
the activities referred to in paragraph (4).
    ``(6) In addition to any other funds appropriated for the Center, 
there is authorized to be appropriated for the Center, to carry out 
this subsection, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2026 and each subsequent 
fiscal year.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### §§ 206.121-206.130 [Reserved]
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 1 1

- 00 596

- CV

IN RE ON THE MOVE, INC.

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 31, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On August 16, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. This court has

considered relator’s petition and has determined that relator has failed to establish it lacks an

adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

- 36 (Tex.

2004) (orig. proceeding) (holding that to be entitled to mandamus relief relator must establish it

lacks an adequate remedy by appeal)

. Therefore, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises o ut of Cause No. 2008

- CI

- 06211

, On the Move, Inc. v. Donald Frank Ederer, et al.

, pending in the 407th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Karen Pozza p residing. However,

the order complained of was signed by the Honorable Michael P eden, visiting judge, Bexar County, Texas.