alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6811

NICHOLAS R. CROWDER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LAWRENCE KELLEY, State’s Attorney; DAVID GOADE, Sheriff for Allegany County, Maryland, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA98-1249-S) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 26, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicholas R. Crowder, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We note that the dismissal of Crowder’s petition in the district court is without prejudice to his refiling the petition once he has exhausted state remedies. 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order summarily denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) for failing to exhaust state remedies. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversibleerror. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Crowder v. Kelly , No. CA-98-1249-S (D. Md. Apr. 30, 1998). * Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. His motion’s for habeas corpus relief and bail pending appeal are denied. We dispense withoral 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         364,710
<SECURITIES>                                19,747,615
<RECEIVABLES>                                  222,622
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,274
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,364,221
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          224,060
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,140,161
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,364,221
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               355,039
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                75,660
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                279,379
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   279,379
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
§ 142.40 What if the investigation indicates criminal misconduct? ( a ) Any investigating official may: ( 1 ) Refer allegations of criminal misconduct directly to the Department of Justice for prosecution or for suit under the False Claims Act or other civil proceeding;
( 2 ) Defer or postpone a report or referral to the reviewing official to avoid interference with a criminal investigation or prosecution; or
( 3 ) Issue subpoenas under other statutory authority.
( b ) Nothing in this part limits the requirement that SBA employees report suspected violations of criminal law to the SBA Office of Inspector General or to the Attorney General.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TIM CANOVA,

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 20-cv-61328-SINGHAL

v.

BRENDA C. SNIPES, DOZEL SPENCER,

and the BROWARD COUNTY SUPERVISOR

OF ELECTIONS,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

TIM CANOVA,

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 20-cv-62100-SINGHAL

v.

BRENDA C. SNIPES, DOZEL SPENCER,

and the BROWARD COUNTY SUPERVISOR

OF ELECTIONS,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on a sua sponte review of the record, as well as 

nearly identical motions to consolidate. See Defs.’ Mot. to Consol. (DE [13]), Case No. 

20-cv-61328-SINGHAL; Pl.’s Mot. to Consol. (DE [7]), Case No. 20-cv-61328-SINGHAL. 

Good cause appears that consolidation of the above-styled cases is appropriate to avoid 

unnecessary duplication of judicial labor and effort. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that both motions are GRANTED, and the abovestyled cases are consolidated as follows:

Case 0:20-cv-61328-AHS Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2020 Page 1 of 2
1. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to CLOSE case number 20-cv-62100-

SINGHAL for administrative purposes only.

2. All future filings in these cases shall be made under case number 20-cv61328-SINGHAL only and shall bear the case style and caption displayed on this order.

3. There is no need to re-file any pleadings from 20-cv-62100 on the docket of 

20-cv-61328.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 27th day of 

October 2020.

Copies to counsel via CM/ECF

Case 0:20-cv-61328-AHS Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2020 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

CASE NO.: 1:20-CV-22937-UU 

WINDY LUCIUS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HOOTERS OF AMERICA, LLC, 

Defendant. 

_______________________________/ 

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

Plaintiff WINDY LUCIUS, and Defendant HOOTERS OF AMERICA, LLC 

(collectively the “Parties”), by and through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby 

stipulate that all claims be dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own 

attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements except as agreed upon by the Parties. 

By: s/ J. Courtney Cunningham 

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 628166 

E-mail: cc@cunninghampllc.com

8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201 

Miami, FL 33156 

Telephone: (305) 351-2014 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

By: s/Mendy Halberstam 

Mendy Halberstam, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 68999 

E-mail: Mendy.halberstam@jacksonlewis.com 

JACKSON LEWIS, P.C. 

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500 

Two South Biscayne Boulevard 

Miami, Florida 33131-2374 

Telephone: (305) 577-7600 

Facsimile: (305) 373-4466 

Counsel for Defendant

Case 1:20-cv-22937-UU Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2020 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.: 1:20-CV-22937-UU 

2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 12, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document 

is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List via 

transmission of Notice of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF and Electronic Mail. 

 s/ Mendy Halberstam 

 Mendy Halberstam, Esq. 

SERVICE LIST 

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 

Windy Lucius v. Hooters of America, LLC 

Case No. 1:20-CV-22937-UU

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 628166 

E-mail: cc@cunninghampllc.com

8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201 

Miami, FL 33156 

Telephone: (305) 351-2014 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

Mendy Halberstam, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 68999 

E-mail: mendy.halberstam@jacksonlewis.com 

JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500 

2 South Biscayne Boulevard 

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: 305-577-7600 

Facsimile: 305-373-4466 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Case 1:20-cv-22937-UU Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2020 Page 2 of 2
#### Beverly Allen v. Northeast Utilities

James A. Wade and Sylvia Kemp-Orino, in support of the petition.

Decided April 26, 1986

The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate court, 6 Conn. App. 498, is denied.
#### E. Sterling Carter, as Administrator with the Will Annexed of Robert E. Carter, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. New York Central Railroad Company, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ,; Peck, P. J., and Callahan, J., dissent upon the ground that the abandonment of the use specified in the deed had either actually occurred or was imminent and inevitable at the time of the taking in coftdemnation. The breach of the condition subsequent in the deed was not the consequence of the condemnation, but the result of administrative mandates having the force of law effective as of dates antecedent to the proceedings in condemnation. We are of the opinion that under the circumstances the defendant is not entitled to more than a nominal part of the award, and the plaintiffs are entitled to the remainder. Accordingly, we vote to reverse the judgment appealed from and grant judgment for the plaintiffs to the extent indicated.
#### The People of the State of New York et al., Respondents, v. Antonio Falcone et al., Appellants.

Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ. [See *post,*p. 895.]
###### Editorial Note on Part 120

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 120.428 What happens to a securitizer's other PLP responsibilities if SBA suspends its PLP approval privilege?

The securitizer must continue to service and liquidate loans according to its PLP Supplemental Agreement.
#### George M. Billings, Respondent, v. Julia Burger, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Ho opinion. Close, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Lewis, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-61369-CIV-WILLIAMS

TRUGON PROPERTIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AMERICAN FIRST FEDERAL, INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle’s Report

and Recommendation (DE 42) on Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (DE 34). In the 

Report, Magistrate Judge Valle recommended that Defendant’s Motion be DENIED.

Defendant filed no objections to the Report, and the time to do so has passed. 

Having carefully reviewed the Report, the record, and the applicable law, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report (DE 42) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 

2. Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (DE 34) is DENIED.

3. This case remains CLOSED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 1st day of

September, 2021.

Case 0:20-cv-61369-KMW Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2021 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:20-cv-21846-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:20-cv-21846-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:20-cv-21846-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:20-cv-21846-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:20-cv-21846-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:20-cv-21846-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2020 Page 6 of 6
#### Max Schectman, Appellant, v. Ernest A. Silverman, Respondent.

Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 689.]
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to this park navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to this park information section
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

William Howard Taft
National Historic SiteOhio
#### § 109.350 Maintenance of loan loss reserve.

The ILP Intermediary must maintain a reasonable loan loss reserve appropriate for the quality of the ILP Intermediary's portfolio in a federally insured depository account established by the ILP Intermediary at a well-capitalized financial institution. The loan loss reserve must be in an account separate and distinct from the ILP Intermediary's other assets and financial activities. This reserve must be maintained at not less than 5% of the principal balance of all outstanding loans to Eligible Small Business Concerns made from the ILP Relending Fund. The AA/CA or designee may require the ILP Intermediary to maintain a larger loss reserve if the AA/CA determines that the ILP Intermediary's loss reserve level is potentially inadequate to protect SBA from loss. ILP Relending Fund proceeds must not be used to establish or maintain the loan loss reserve.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PALM BEACH DIVISION

Case No.: 9:20-cv-80954-DMM

SL MONROE, SR., and other similarly 

situated individuals,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

DELPHI BEHAVIORAL HEALTH GROUP, 

LLC d/b/a The Palm Beach Institute, PALM 

BEACH RECOVERY, LLC; and DOMINIC 

SIRIANNI,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Plaintiff, SL MONROE, SR. (“Plaintiff”), by and through undersigned counsel, and 

pursuant to this Court’s Order dated July 31, 2020 [D.E. No. 19], hereby files this Statement of 

Claim.

1. Amount of unpaid wages: the initial estimated amount of unpaid wages in this 

case is $6,763.37.1

2. Calculation of unpaid wages: Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages 

accumulated from approximately July 20, 2018, through April 1, 2020. In total, Plaintiff worked 

approximately 88.7 compensable weeks counting 3 years back from the filing of the instant action. 

Plaintiff worked approximately 50 hours per week, without being compensated all of the overtime 

worked. Plaintiff’s good faith estimate of unpaid wages is as follows:

1 Plaintiff is also seeking to recover damages for his retaliatory discharge in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3).

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

3. Nature of wages: Plaintiff was not paid at the lawful overtime rate.

4. Total Amount of Damages Sought: $6,763.37, plus an equal amount in liquidated 

damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, and court costs. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s total amount of 

damages to date is approximately $13,526.74, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit.2

Dated: August 5, 2020. Respectfully submitted,

Aron Smukler

Aron Smukler, Esq. (FBN: 0297779)

E-mail: asmukler@saenzanderson.com

SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC

20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800

Aventura, Florida 33180

Telephone: (305) 503-5131

Facsimile: (888) 270-5549

Counsel for Plaintiff SL MONROE, SR.

2 Plaintiff is also seeking to recover damages for his retaliatory discharge in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3).

Time Period Calculation Unpaid 

Wages

July 20, 2018 –

April 1, 2020

$15.25 (hourly pay) x .5 (overtime rate) x 10 (approximate 

number of overtime hours) x 88.7 (compensable weeks) $6,763.37

Case 9:20-cv-80954-DMM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020 Page 2 of 2
#### In re BARTLETT et al.

(198 N. W. 125.)

(File No. 4799.

Opinion filed March 18, 1924.)

Attorney and Client — Costs—Disbarment—Fees and Expenses of Referee and Court Reporter in Disbarment Proceedings Not Taxable Against Disbarred Attorneys.

Tbe fees and expenses of tbe referee and the fees and per diem of th© court reporter in taking testimony and transcribing the same in disbarment proceedings are not taxable as costs against the disbarred attorneys.

In the matter of objection to the taxation of costs in the disbarment proceedings brought against A. L. Bartlett and L. T. Van Slyke, attorneys at law.

Costs in part taxed to defendants.

See, also, 197 N. W. 285, reported herein.

*Buell P.*Jones, Attorney General, for prosecution.

*Campbell &*Fletcher, of Aberdeen, and *P. W. Dougherty,*of Webster, for Respondents.

*271■SHERWOQD, F. !J.

This matter comes on upon a show cause order obtained by the Attorney General against said defendants, to show cause why the fees and expenses of C. O. Bailey, as referee, in the sum of $299,74 and the fees and per diem of William Wjallace, for taking testimony at the trial and making transcript of the same for $351.55, should not be taxed as costs against said defendants, and the objections of the defendants to the taxation of each of the above items, on the ground that under the law and the decisions of the court they are not taxable costs in this proceeding. In Re Egan, 38 S. D. 224, 160 N. W. 814, we said:

> “The amount of items covering the fees and expenses of thel referees, the per diem and mileage of the stenographer who reported and transcribed the evidence, and the charges of such1 stenographer for a transcript of the evidence,” are not taxable against any party.

And in Re Morrison, 42 S. D. 42, 177 N. W. 806, this court said, referring to the case last above cited:

> “We intended upon the rehearing simply to lay down the rule that the expense of providing a court and its officers, including the stenographer and transcript, was an expense that should not be taxed against the disbarred attorney.”

Following the rule thus lai^l 'down, we hold that neither of the above-entitled items are taxable against the defendants. The other two items of cost in the sum of $6.45 are proper costs in this action, and may be taxed against the defendants.

Noted. — Reported in 189, N. W. 125. See, Headnote, American Key-Numbered Digest, Attorney and client, Key-No. 59, 6 C. J. Sec. 94.
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 11


     The FASB has issued Statement No. 128, Earnings Per Share, which supersedes
APB Opinion No. 15. Statement No. 128 requires the presentation of earnings per
share by all entries that have common stock or potential common stock, such as
options, warrants and convertible securities, outstanding that trade in a public
market.  Those entities that have only common stock outstanding are required to
present basic earnings per share amounts.  Basic per share amounts are computed
by dividing net income (the numerator) by the weighted-average number of common
shares outstanding (the denominator).  All other entities are required to
present basic and diluted per share amounts.  Diluted per share amounts assume
the conversion, exercise or issuance of all potential common stock instruments
unless the effect is to reduce the loss or increase the income per common share
from continuing operations.  For purposes of this computation, the number of
shares of common stock purchased by the Bank's employee stock ownership plan
which have been not been allocated to participants accounts are not assumed to
be outstanding.  The activity from the date of Conversion, December 30, 1997, to
the end of the 1997 fiscal year is insufficient to compute a per share amount
for that fiscal year.  See Note 14 in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial
Statements for further information.

     Earnings per share has been calculated in accordance with FASB Statement
No. 128, Earnings Per Share.  For purposes of this computation, the number of
shares of common stock purchased by the Bank's employee stock ownership plan
which have not been allocated to participant accounts are not assumed to be
outstanding.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                             For the Year Ended December 31, 1998
                           ----------------------------------------
                              Income         Shares       Per Share
                           (Numerator)    (Denominator)    Amount
                           ----------------------------------------
<S>                        <C>            <C>             <C>
Basic and Diluted EPS       $2,204,000         622,839        $3.54
                           ========================================
 
</TABLE>
Skip to global NPS navigation
Skip to this park navigation
Skip to the main content
Skip to this park information section
Skip to the footer section






National Park Service Search Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


Tumacácori
National Historical Park
Arizona


Info
Alerts
Maps
Calendar
Fees


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


Contact Us
  Volunteer
 Current Volunteer Opportunities

rangers and stick figures holding volunteer sealAt some times of year, volunteers outnumber paid staff four to one. NPS PhotoWhat is it like to volunteer at Tumacácori?
In a word - great! Supervision and/or training is provided for all positions. Some volunteer positions are regular, ongoing positions; others are seasonal or for special projects.  In addition to the open positions above, volunteers have engaged in these types of activities:
Interpretation
Docent - lead tours, develop programs for visitors
Youth programming - for school groups on- and off-site
Assist at Visitor Center Information Desk, including sale of books and other materials
Photography and videography
Translate / transcribe old Spanish documents
Translate brochures / site bulletins into Spanish, German, or French
Miscellaneous organizational and clerical work for Interpretive Division
Graphic design for posters and exhibits
Historical research on selected topicsMaintenance
Landscaping and garden work (weeding, trimming, etc.)
Small engine maintenance and lube work on equipment
General repair work, carpentry, plastering, painting
Trails maintenance - cleaning/dusting exhibits and trail signsAdministration
Computer data entryFind Out More
Contact the Volunteer Coordinator at 520-377-5063 or stop by for more information.
 Last updated: June 11, 2021
 Park footer Contact Info Mailing Address: P.O. Box 8067
Tumacacori,
AZ
85640
 Phone: 520 377-5060 Contact Us
 Tools FAQ
Site Index
Español
 Stay Connected


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
14910-13-Pj DEPARTMENT OF TR-\NSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14CFR Part 39 0'31(, [Docket No. FAA-2010-~; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-251-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt anew ajnvorthiness directive (AD) forthe product listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness infonnation (MeAl) originated byan aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes {heunsar. condition as: When preparing for landing, the flight crew of aF28 Mark 0100 (Fokker 100) aeroplane observed amain landing gear (MLG) unsafe indication after landing gear down selection. 

## *** (T)he right (RH) MLG was partly extended and the left (LH) MLG door was open but without the MLG being extended. 

## * * '" Subsequent investigation revealed that the cause oftbe MLG extension problem was the (partially) blocked hydraulic return line from the MLG selector valve by pieces ofhard plastic. These were identified as pans of the poppet seat of [parking brake shut-off valve] (PBSaV) Part Number (PIN) 70379. 

# 'Z/z-;/ID

rm-e;snlaoL 

## RE('

## -'-6-]3

. .f-- 

## S

## ~t.y. D '1'1' 

## 7Jlojl'D kOU'I"INGSYMlIOL ,-ftJAA

- 

# ::r ."T''''-'''''G 

# { C-t.---

ROt.ITl, ,SYM L This condition, ifnot detected and corrected, could lead to funher events where the MLG fails to extend, possibly resulting inJoss of control ofthe aeroplane during landing,