alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT B

Case 4:20-cv-10076-JLK Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2020 Page 1 of 2
4. Pier B Owner is a Florida profit corporation with a principal place of business in

Monroe County, Florida, and Pier B Owner owns the private property in the Port of

Key West known as "Pier B."

5. Pier B entered into, and is subject to, prior regulations, development orders, and CCRs of

the City of Key West, including but not limited to Resolution 93-405 and 99-457.

6. Pier B Owner entered into these regulations and limitations on the use of Pier B Owner's

land for the operation of a cruiseport on Pier B.

7. The primary, and practically sole, economic value of the cruiseport of Pier B is to serve as

a port of call for cruise ships.

8. Pier B is one of three docks at the Port of Key West that regularly accepts cruise ships, and

it is the only privately-owned dock that accepts cruise ships.

9. Pier B Owner's disembarkation fees are based on the number of passengers on the

manifests of the cruise ships that dock at Pier B; 25% of these revenues are provided to the

City of Key West.

10. The Initiatives will extremely reduce the value of Pier B and result in a massive economic

injury to Pier B Owner. The value of Pier B, pursuant to the Development Order with the

City of Key West, is to provide dockage for cruise ships consistent with Pier B Owner's

contractual obligations to the City of Key West to maximize revenues.

11. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 3

rd day of August, 2020, in Delray Beach, Florida.

Mark Walsh 

00205032 - v4 Page 2 of2 

EXHIBIT B

Case 4:20-cv-10076-JLK Document 38-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2020 Page 2 of 2
#### Sam Weinshenker, Defendant in Error, v. Elias Epstein, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 16,766.

*Broker—license.*A real estate broker who has not taken out a license as required by a city ordinance cannot recover commissions *105for sale of defendant’s real estate although employed by a corporation licensed as a broker.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Host. William N. Cottrell, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1910.

Reversed.

Opinion filed December 30, 1912.

Peter Sissman, for plaintiff in error.

Nicolas J. Pritzker, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Baker

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action of the fourth class brought by defendant in error in the municipal court against plaintiff in error to recover commissions claimed to have been earned by plaintiff as broker, for the sale of certain real estate of defendant. An ordinance of the City of Chicago makes it unlawful for any person to exercise within the city the business of a real estate broker without taking out a license, and it is settled law that such broker cannot recover commissions unless he had a license when the sale was made. The ordinance only applies to persons who make the negotiation of sales of real estate a business or occupation, and not to one who is not in the business, but negotiates a single sale. O’Neill v. Sinclair, 153 Ill. 525. The sale for which commissions were claimed was negotiated December 6, 1909. In answer to the interrogatory propounded to him, “What is your business,” plaintiff answered, May 2, 1910, “Beal estate broker.” On this trial the interrogatory and answer were put in evidence and plaintiff testified, “I am with C. E. Eulette & Company.” He further testified that he had half a dozen customers for defendant’s property, and showed it to about ten people before the contract was signed. It also appeared that defendant bought the property through plaintiff’s office, and that his office was at 167 Dearborn Street. The ordinance further provides that any person employed by a person or corporation licensed as a broker who shall him*106self engage in the business or act in the capacity of a broker, shall, notwithstanding the fact of such employment, be amenable to the provisions of the ordinance and shall be required to take out a broker’s license. It was admitted by plaintiff’s attorney on the trial that no license ever issued to plaintiff individually. We think that it clearly appears from the evidence that plaintiff was engaged in the business of a real estate broker when he negotiated the sale in question, and that he in that capacity negotiated the sale for which he recovered commissions.

It follows from what has been said that in our opinion the plaintiff was not entitled to recover from the defendant and the finding and judgment should have been for the defendant.

The judgment of the municipal court will therefore be reversed

*'Reversed.*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended.  The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, RFA: CA05-004 and CA05-008.                    

*Date:*                         November 30, 2004.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications and/or proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6130 Executive Blvd., Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Sherwood Githens, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Special Review and Logistics Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 8053, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1822.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 6, 2004.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04-23201  Filed 10-15-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-61297-CIV-ALTMAN/Hunt

BYRON HALL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LVNV FUNDING, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

The Federal Rules provide that, when “actions before the court involve a common question 

of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions.” FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a). Accordingly, the 

Court hereby ORDERS AND ADJDUGES as follows:

1. Case Numbers 20-cv-61382-RKA and 20-cv-61318-RKA are hereby 

CONSOLIDATED into Case No. 20-cv-61297-RKA. 

2. Case Numbers 20-cv-61382-RKA and 20-cv-61318-RKA shall be administratively 

CLOSED. All future filings shall be made under Hall v. LVNV Funding, LLC, Case 

No. 20-cv-61297-RKA.

3. Any pending motions in Case Numbers 20-cv-61382-RKA and 20-cv-61318-RKA are 

DENIED AS MOOT.

4. By October 2, 2020, the Plaintiffs shall file a single, combined complaint, which will 

govern this case.

5. This Order is without prejudice to any party filing a future motion for separate trials

under FED. R. CIV. P. 42(b).

6. The Clerk shall docket this Order in the following cases:

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

a. Hall v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 20-cv-61297-RKA

b. Titus v. Merrick Bank Corporation, 20-cv-61318-RKA

c. Amodio v. Resurgent Capital Services L.P., 20-cv-61382-RKA

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida this 28th day of September 2020.

_________________________________

ROY K. ALTMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 2 of 2
### §9722. Sham transactions

If a principal purpose of any transaction is to evade or avoid liability under this chapter, this chapter shall be applied (and such liability shall be imposed) without regard to such transaction.

(Added Pub. L. 102–486, title XIX, §19143(a), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3056.)
458 P.2d 231

#### Mr. and Mrs. Dan QUINTANA, Petitioners, v. Paul F. LARRAZOLO, District Judge, Respondent.

No. 8907.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Sept. 3, 1969.

MOISE, Acting Chief Justice and COMPTON, TACKETT and WATSON, Justices, concurring. NOBLE, Chief Justice, being absent and not participating.

Ordered that petition for writ of mandamus be and the same is hereby denied.
### §2466. Fugitive disentitlement

(a) A judicial officer may disallow a person from using the resources of the courts of the United States in furtherance of a claim in any related civil forfeiture action or a claim in third party proceedings in any related criminal forfeiture action upon a finding that such person—

(1) after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for his apprehension, in order to avoid criminal prosecution—

(A) purposely leaves the jurisdiction of the United States;

(B) declines to enter or reenter the United States to submit to its jurisdiction; or

(C) otherwise evades the jurisdiction of the court in which a criminal case is pending against the person; and

(2) is not confined or held in custody in any other jurisdiction for commission of criminal conduct in that jurisdiction.

(b) Subsection (a) may be applied to a claim filed by a corporation if any majority shareholder, or individual filing the claim on behalf of the corporation is a person to whom subsection (a) applies.

(Added Pub. L. 106–185, §14(a), Apr. 25, 2000, 114 Stat. 219; amended Pub. L. 107–56, title III, §322, Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 315; Pub. L. 109–162, title XI, §1171(c), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3123; Pub. L. 109–177, title IV, §406(a)(1), Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 244.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2006—Pub. L. 109–177 directed amendment of directory language of Pub. L. 107–56, §322, identical to amendment by Pub. L. 109–162. See below.

Pub. L. 109–162 amended directory language of Pub. L. 107–56, §322. See 2001 Amendment note below.

2001—Pub. L. 107–56, §322, as amended by Pub. L. 109–162, designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

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

#### Effective Date of 2006 Amendment

Pub. L. 109–162, title XI, §1171(c), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3123, provided in part that the amendment made by section 1171(c) of Pub. L. 109–162 is effective Oct. 26, 2001.

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 106–185, §14(c), Apr. 25, 2000, 114 Stat. 219, provided that: "The amendments made by this section [enacting this section] shall apply to any case pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Apr. 25, 2000]."
### §4239. Performance reports

#### (a) Requirement

For each fiscal year, the Director shall—

(1) review the progress the Department has made during that fiscal year in carrying out the housing plan submitted by the Department under section 4223 of this title; and

(2) submit a report to the Secretary (in a form acceptable to the Secretary) describing the conclusions of the review.

#### (b) Content

Each report submitted under this section for a fiscal year shall—

(1) describe the use of grant amounts provided to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands for that fiscal year;

(2) assess the relationship of the use referred to in paragraph (1) to the goals identified in the housing plan;

(3) indicate the programmatic accomplishments of the Department; and

(4) describe the manner in which the Department would change its housing plan submitted under section 4223 of this title as a result of its experiences.

#### (c) Submissions

The Secretary shall—

(1) establish a date for submission of each report under this section;

(2) review each such report; and

(3) with respect to each such report, make recommendations as the Secretary considers appropriate to carry out the purposes of this subchapter.

#### (d) Public availability

#### (1) Comments by beneficiaries

In preparing a report under this section, the Director shall make the report publicly available to the beneficiaries of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108 et seq.) and give a sufficient amount of time to permit those beneficiaries to comment on that report before it is submitted to the Secretary (in such manner and at such time as the Director may determine).

#### (2) Summary of comments

The report shall include a summary of any comments received by the Director from beneficiaries under paragraph (1) regarding the program to carry out the housing plan.

(Pub. L. 104–330, title VIII, §820, as added Pub. L. 106–568, title II, §203, Dec. 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 2893, and Pub. L. 106–569, title V, §513, Dec. 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 2987.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, referred to in subsec. (d)(1), is act July 9, 1921, ch. 42, 42 Stat. 108, which was classified generally to sections 691 to 718 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions, and was omitted from the Code.

#### Codification

Pub. L. 106–568, §203, and Pub. L. 106–569, §513, enacted identical sections 820 of Pub. L. 104–330. This section is based on the text of section 820 of Pub. L. 104–330, as added by Pub. L. 106–569, §513.
#### Julius Luftman et al., Suing on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Tenants of the Hotel Marcy, Respondents, v. Paul Ross et al., Constituting the Temporary City Housing Rent Commission of the City of New York, et al., Appellants.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See *post,*p. 923.]
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 41

**Question 41:** Licensee A questions a new employee about outside employment. The employee states that he is only working at that facility. After 3 months, the employee starts working, in the evenings, at another licensed facility (Licensee B). The employee does not tell A about B; therefore, Licensee A does not take the exposure received by the employee at facility B into account when he calculates the employees annual total effective dose equivalent (TEDE). Will Licensee A be in noncompliance for not knowing about the dose received by the employee at Licensee B? If licensee A was made aware of the exposure at Licensee B after-the-fact, must Licensee A go back and account for this exposure when calculating TEDE? If Licensee A finds out about the worker's exposure at Licensee B after the year's end, and if the sum of the exposures exceeded the annual limit, is Licensee A obligated to record and report the overexposure and deduct it from the 25 rem lifetime PSE limit?

**Answer:** In order to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1201 (f), the licensee must establish some means to have each employee inform the licensee when that employee is receiving occupational dose from sources outside the licensee's control. It is not sufficient merely to ask each employee once (as in the example), with no continuing provision for employee notification. Assuming that Licensee A made no provision for learning of the new employees subsequent concurrent employment in other jobs that resulted in occupational dose, Licensee A would be in noncompliance for not determining the dose received on the job at Licensee B. If Licensee A was made aware of the exposure at Licensee B after-the-fact, Licensee A must go back and account for this exposure when calculating TEDE. If Licensee A finds out about the worker's exposure at Licensee B after year's end, and if the sum of the exposures exceeded the annual limit, Licensee A is obligated to record and report the overexposure and to deduct it from the 25 rem lifetime PSE limit. Although the question and preceding answer are provided in terms of Licensee A's responsibilities with respect to doses received at Licensee B's facility, Licensee B has the same responsibilities with respect to doses received at licensee A's facility.

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1201)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 12, 2017
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


Yellowstone
National Park
ID, MT, WY


Info
Alerts
Maps
Calendar
Fees


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


Contact Us
  Thermal Features
 Last updated: September 22, 2022
 Park footer Contact Info Mailing Address: PO Box 168
Yellowstone National Park,
WY
82190-0168
 Phone: 307-344-7381 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,833
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,016
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,135)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          65,435
<DEPRECIATION>                                (34,910)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,132
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         23,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,514
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71,132
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,759
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,883
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   897
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,263
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,963
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,963
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,963
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.24


</TABLE>
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

 42

▲ ★

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲

▲

▲

 1000

 1500

 2000

 1000

18 12 06 00

06/21

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 21 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL
#### Joseph M. May, Respondent, v. Kalmon Dolgin, Inc., Appellant.

Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Authority of Agreement States Concerning Their Licensees Working at DOE Facilities

## HPPOS-197 PDR-9111210327

See the memorandum from R. L. Fonner to G. L. Sjoblom dated March 20, 1987.

Agreement States have continuing authority over their licensees working at DOE facilities, such as the case of the radiography overexposure incident at Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. This is not true for the rare situation of exclusive federal jurisdiction.

Numerous documents are enclosed that describe an incident at the DOE's Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) where a source disconnect occurred while radiography operations were being conducted on December 8, 1976. Film badges worn by the two radiographers involved showed total body doses of 3.2 rems and 4.8 rems.

Guidance was sought because DOE's Chief Counsel at the Idaho Operations Office stated that, although INEL was not an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction but rather one of proprietary jurisdiction, DOE considered the site as exclusive for licensing purposes and that DOE does not recognize any State responsibility at INEL. The State of Idaho, however, questioned this opinion in regards to the State's role in licensing and investigative responsibility.

The Office of General Council, NRC, stated that the enforcement jurisdiction in this case was vested in the State of Idaho. This would also be the situation under the reciprocity provisions of State law if the radiography company had been licensed by NRC but engaged in activities in an Agreement State. (See the parallel reciprocity provisions contained in 10 CFR 150.20.)

As to jurisdiction, the NRC does not exercise regulatory or enforcement authority over radiographers at INEL. In Agreement States, the NRC would license and regulate private parties, such as the radiographers, who are normally subject to State jurisdiction only in areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction. Exclusive federal jurisdiction is based upon Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution and applies only to land acquired according to its terms; primarily that the State Legislature has ceded exclusive jurisdiction over the land to the federal government and Congress has accepted the land on that basis. Relatively few areas such as described exist.

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 30.12, 10 CFR 150.20

**Subject codes:** 12.2, 12.9

**Applicability:** Byproduct Material

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, October 17, 2017