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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-61358-VALLE 

CONSENT CASE

ROBERT JOSEPH BRANDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

GEORGIAN COURT APARTMENT 

NORTH, INC. et al.,

Defendants. _________________________________________/

FINAL JUDGMENT

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Notice of Acceptance of Offer of 

Judgment of Defendant Georgian Court Apartment North, Inc. (“GC North”) (ECF No. 18) (the 

“Notice”). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, a party defending against a claim may 

serve upon an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with the costs then 

accrued. Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a). If the opposing party serves notice of accepting the offer, then the 

Court must enter judgment. Id.

Here, on August 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed the Notice indicating that he had accepted GC 

North’s offer of judgment pursuant to Rule 68. (ECF No. 18). On March 2, 2021, Plaintiff and 

Co-Defendant Georgian Apartments, Inc. (“GC Apartments”) filed a Motion for Approval of a 

separate Settlement Agreement between Plaintiff and GC Apartments. (ECF No. 50). 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

Case 0:20-cv-61358-AOV Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2021 Page 1 of 2
2

1. FINAL JUDGMENT pursuant to Rules 68 and 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against GC North in the amount of $4,120.69.

2. The case remains administratively CLOSED and any pending motions are 

DENIED AS MOOT.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on March 10, 2021.

____________________________________

ALICIA O. VALLE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: All Counsel of Record

Case 0:20-cv-61358-AOV Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2021 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SYNEEDA L. PENLAND, : : Petitioner, : Ci vil Action No.: 09-1417 (RMU) : v. : : RAYMOND E. MABUS, : Secretary of the Navy, : : Respondent. : : SYNEEDA L. PENLAND, : : Petitioner, : Ci vil Action No.: 09-1418 (RMU) : v. : : RAYMOND E. MABUS, : Secretary of the Navy, : : Respondent. : : MEMORANDUM OPINION

D ISMISSING THESE C ASES W ITHOUT P REJUDICE B ASED ON THE P ETITIONER ’ S F AILURE TO P ROSECUTE The petitioner commenced these actions on July 29, 2009. On May 19, 2010, after several months of inactivity in the case, the court issued an order directing the petitioner to show cause on or before May 24, 2010 why these case s should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Order (May 19, 2010). The petitioner has yet to file any re sponse to the court’s order. “The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecu te cannot seriously be doubted.” Link v. Wabash R. Co ., 3702 U.S. 626, 629 (1962); see also F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 41(b) (authorizing the involuntary dismissal of actions based on the plaintiff’s failure to pros ecute); LCvR 83.23 (providing that the court may dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute); Automated Datatron, Inc. v. Woodcock , 659 F.2d 1168, 1170 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (observi ng that “[i]f district court judges are to discharge their heavy responsibilities effectively, their power to dismiss . . . must be more than theoretical”). This Circuit has cautioned, however, that dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute is a “harsh sanction” reserved for “cases involving egregious conduct by particularly dilatory plaintiffs, after ‘less dire alternatives ’ have been tried without success,” Noble v. U.S. Postal
Serv. , 71 Fed. Appx. 69, 69 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (citing Trakas v. Quality Brands, Inc. , 759 F.2d 185, 186-87 (D.C. Cir. 1985)). In accordance with these principles, the court will not dismiss the case with prejudice, but will instead impose the less dire sanction of dism issal without prejudice based on the petitioner’s failure to prosecute these acti ons or respond to the court’s or der to show cause. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is sepa rately and contemporaneously issued this 28th day of June, 2010.

RICARDO M. URBINA United States District Judge
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-22-00800-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.A.R., E.A.R., E.A.R. and E.A.R.

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-PA-00214

Honorable Linda A. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ, AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order terminating 

appellants’ parental rights is AFFIRMED. No costs of appeal are assessed against appellants.

SIGNED June 21, 2023.

_____________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
EXHIBIT “F”

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 1 of 2
Kimberly A. Gilmour, P.A.

4179 Davie Road – Suite 101

Davie, FL 33314

Telephone: (954) 584-6460

Facsimile: (954) 584-3552

 Florida Supreme Court Certified Civil Mediator 

 Arbitrator

 Email: Gilmourlaw@aol.com

MEDIATION INVOICE

Date: March 29, 2021

Statement No.: 2021-763-M 

Chad E. Levy, Esq.

David Corzad, sq.

chad@levylevylaw.com

Daniel R. LevineEsq.

DRL@PBL-Law.com

Re: Case Name: Timothy O’Bryan v. Joe Taylor Restoration, Inc. Aaron Getty, Karen 

Radewicz and Glenda Galarza

CASE NO: 9:20-cv-80993-WPD

Mediation Scheduled for: March 29, 2021 at 10:00 am 

Deposit Due Each Side $350.00 x 2 hours $ 700.00

Administrative Fee (each party) $ 

Travel Time $ 

Cancellation Fee (each party) $ 

Total $ 700.00 

Deposit of $700.00 to be split between the parties. $250.00 due from each party upon 

receipt of invoice. Kimberly A. Gilmour, P.A., Tax I.D. #65-1026359. 

PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE

THANK YOU

371-065 - Joe Taylor / O'Bryan 

3/29/2021 •

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 2 of 2
§ 423.22 Interference with agency functions and disorderly conduct. ( a ) You must not assault, threaten, disturb, resist, intimidate, impede, or interfere with any employee or agent of Federal, State, or local government engaged in an official duty.
( b ) You must comply with any lawful order of an authorized government employee or agent for the purpose of maintaining order and controlling public access and movement during law enforcement actions and emergency or safety-related operations.
( c ) You must not knowingly give a false report or other false information to an authorized government employee or agent.
( d ) You must not interfere with, impede, or disrupt the authorized use of Reclamation facilities, lands, or waterbodies or impair the safety of any person.
( e ) The following acts constitute disorderly conduct and are prohibited: ( 1 ) Fighting, or threatening or violent behavior;
( 2 ) Language, utterance, gesture, display, or act that is obscene, physically threatening or menacing, or that is likely to inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace;
( 3 ) Unreasonable noise, considering the nature and purpose of the person's conduct, location, time of day or night, and other factors that would govern the conduct of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances;
( 4 ) Creating or maintaining a hazardous or physically offensive condition; or
( 5 ) Any other act or activity that may cause or create public alarm, nuisance, or bodily harm.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 23T85, Atlanta, GA 30303

Tel. 404-562-4416 or 4417 Fax 404-562-4980

Internet: kmc2@nrc.gov or rdh1@nrc.gov

No: II-99-40 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Wednesday, July 7, 1999)

NRC STAFF SCHEDULES PUBLIC MEETING IN RALEIGH ON JULY 13

TO DESCRIBE NEW INSPECTION AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

CP&L’s Harris Nuclear Power Plant Is One of Nine Participating In Pilot Program

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a public meeting in Raleigh on the

evening of Tuesday, July 13 to describe a new pilot inspection and assessment program being

conducted at Carolina Power & Light Company’s Shearon Harris nuclear power plant.

The meeting will be held from 7:00 until 9:00 p.m. (EDT) at the Homewood Suites Hotel,

located at 100 MacAlyson Court in Cary, N.C., a Raleigh suburb. Take U.S. 1 South from

Raleigh to exit 98B. It will be open to observation by interested members of the public, and

NRC officials will be available at its conclusion to take questions and comments from those who

attend.

Harris is one of nine commercial nuclear power plants participating in a trial, six-month NRC

pilot program which began June 1 to test and evaluate a new inspection and assessment

program intended for use by the NRC staff at all 103 of the nation’s commercial nuclear power

reactors next year.

The NRC developed the new reactor inspection and assessment program in order to use its

resources more effectively and efficiently. NRC officials said the new program reflects

improvements in nuclear power plant safety performance over the past 20 years and that plants

that perform well will have less regulatory oversight than plants that have problems.

The new program will continue to utilize “baseline” inspections at all licensed, commercial

nuclear power plants with NRC resident inspectors on site, supplemented by specialists from

one of four NRC regional offices and/or the agency’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. If

performance declines at a plant, NRC regulatory activities for that facility will increase.

The new assessment program will focus in part on common “performance indicators” which

provide information on how well a plant is performing. NRC inspectors will also monitor a

number of plant activities that are not measured by the indicators. Inspections will pay

particular attention to how well the plant’s staff finds and corrects problems.

The pilot program includes, in addition to Harris, Sequoyah in Tennessee, Hope Creek and

Salem in New Jersey, Fitzpatrick in New York, Prairie Island in Minnesota, Quad Cities in

Illinois, and Fort Calhoun and Cooper in Nebraska.

A full description of the program is available on the NRC’s internet web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/primer.htm. Questions also may be addressed to opa@nrc.gov.
#
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-99-50 May 28, 1999

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC STAFF TO HOLD PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MEETING AT FITZPATRICK

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a public meeting with representatives

of the James A. FitzPatrick nuclear power plant on Thursday, June 3, to discuss the results of

the agency’s latest Plant Performance Review for the facility. The New York Power Authority

operates the plant, which is located in Scriba, N.Y.

Results of the review are contained in NRC news release I-99-34, which was issued on

April 13. That press release can be found on the agency’s Internet web site at: www.nrc.gov

The meeting will begin at 1 p.m. in the auditorium of the plant’s training center. At the

conclusion, NRC staff will be available to answer questions from interested observers and to

meet with state and local officials.

#
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY [EQUIVALENT OF] CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Annual Report of EntreMed, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Neil J. Campbell, as President 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:



|(1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 for the dates and periods covered by the Report.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to EntreMed, Inc. and will be retained by EntreMed, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by
the Chief Executive Officer of the Company (or equivalent) with the
requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be
disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than as
specifically required by law.

/s/ Neil J. CampbellAugust 12, 2003
    
    Neil J. CampbellPresident and COO
###### Editorial Note on Part 121

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 121 appear at 72 FR 50039 and 50040, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 121.501 What programs for sales or leases of Government property are subject to size determinations?

Sections 121.501 through 121.512 apply to small business size determinations for the purpose of the sale or lease of Government property, including the Timber Sales Program, the Special Salvage Timber Sales Program, and the sale of Government petroleum, coal and uranium.
### §564. Powers as sheriff

United States marshals, deputy marshals and such other officials of the Service as may be designated by the Director, in executing the laws of the United States within a State, may exercise the same powers which a sheriff of the State may exercise in executing the laws thereof.

(Added Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7608(a)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4513.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 564, added Pub. L. 89–554, §4(c), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 619, related to bonds of United States marshals, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 92–310, title II, §206(a)(1), June 6, 1972, 86 Stat. 203.
# Holland&

# Knight

800 17th Street, NW, Suite 1100 IWashington, DC 20006 IT 202.955.3000 I F 202.955.5564 Holland & Knight LLP 1www.hklaw.com
Anita M. Mosner (202) 419-2604 anita.mosner@hklaw.com



### January 16, 2015 Via www.regulations.gov 

### Mr. Paul Gretch Director Office of International Aviation U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. Washington, DC 20590 Re: Virgin Atlantic- Cyprus Airways Codesharing; Notice ofTermination (Docket No. OST-2011-0113) Dear Mr. Gretch: Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. ("Virgin Atlantic") holds a Statement of Authorization granted by the Department that permits Virgin Atlantic to carry the Cyprus Airways Public Limited ("Cyprus Airways") code on flights operated by Virgin Atlantic between the United Kingdom and any of Virgin Atlantic's current or future U.S. gateways. 1 

### On January 9, 2015, Cyprus Airways suspended all operations. Consequently, in accordance with the conditions attached to the Statement ofAuthorization, Virgin Atlantic hereby advises the Department that the Virgin Atlantic-Cyprus Airways codeshare arrangement has been terminated effective January 9, 2015. Submitted,

A ta M. Mesner Counsel for Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd.

cc: Service list

1 Department Action on Application, Docket No. OST-2011-0113 (July 28, 2011 ).

Anchorage 1Atlanta 1Austin 1Boston 1Chicago 1 Dallas 1Fort Lauderdale I Jacksonville I Lakeland I Los Angeles I Miami I New York Northern Virginia 1Orlando 1 Portland 1San Francisco 1Tallahassee 1Tampa 1Washington, D.C. IWest Palm BeachCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this date served the foregoing document on the persons identified below by causing a copy to be sent by electronic mail. robert.wirick@aa.com howard.kass@aa.com sharon.pasley@fedex.com sllunsford@fedex.com dan.weiss@united.com sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com rpommer@atlasair.com kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com anita.mosner@hklaw.com (Counsel for United Parcel Service) jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com (Counsel for United Parcel Service) jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com (Counsel for Amerijet) jcanny@amerijet.com matwood@cozen.com (Counsel for Kalitta Air) john.s.duncan@faa.gov cristinasa@state.gov robert.finamore@dot.gov

#34459098_vl 

### .,/::renniter M. Nowak /;/' January 16, 2015
No. 14,865.

#### People ex rel. Lenzini *v.*District Court of the Third Judicial District et al.

(106 P. [2d] 1063)

Decided September 25, 1940.

Mr. Romilly Foote, Mr. George H. Blickhahn, Mr. Charles T. Mahoney, for petitioner.

*436Mr. Byron G. Rogers, Attorney General, Mr. Henry E. Lutz, deputy, Mr. John N. Mabry, for respondents.

*En Banc.*

Per Curiam.

It here appears that the Hon. John L. East disqualified himself, sua sponte, in the trial of this cause. Over the protest of petitioner he transferred the cause to Hon. David M. Ralston, district judge of the same district. An order to show cause was thereupon issued from this court directed to Judge Ralston. The matter is now at issue and thereon we hold that rule 14c of our rules is applicable. That rule reads: “When, in any cause pending in any district court, a motion for change of judge is sustained, or a change ordered, sua sponte, because of the disqualification of the trial judge, such available judge shall be called in as may be agreed upon by the parties within ten days from the date of said order. In case of failure to so agree within said time the trial judge so disqualified shall forthwith certify the facts to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who shall thereupon assign a district judge to hear said cause.”

The writ is accordingly issued as prayed, directed to Judge Ralston, and the cause remanded to Judge East to proceed in conformity to said rule, the ten days provided thereby to begin to run from the date of this order.

Mr. Justice Young not participating.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-99-43 October 13, 1999

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC REGION III ISSUES MID-CYCLE

NUCLEAR PLANT PERFORMANCE REVIEW RESULTS

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is making its mid-cycle Plant

Performance Reviews (PPRs) for nuclear power plants available on the NRC

web site.

PPRs are an interim measure the NRC is using to assess nuclear power

plant safety. The agency began using it for this purpose after

suspending the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) in

1998 while it developed a revised reactor oversight process. The text of

each mid-cycle PPR letter is available from the NRC Region 3 Office of

Public Affairs and on the NRC web site at http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr.

Full scale PPRs, which consisted of an in-depth, integrated

assessment of overall plant performance were conducted approximately six

months ago. The results of those PPRs were communicated to each power

reactor licensee and provided performance information similar to that

previously contained in SALP reports. The recently conducted mid-cycle

PPRs did not entail the same level of assessment effort. The primary

purpose of these reviews was to evaluate safety performance information

from the past six months to identify any changes in performance from that

described in the last PPRs in order to allocate inspection resources

appropriately.

In most instances, the region will continue to execute inspection

plans consisting of core and regional initiative inspections,

commensurate with the level of performance described in the PPRs issued

last spring. However, as a result of the staff’s recent evaluation of

licensee performance, the inspection activity at some plants will be

adjusted in certain areas.

The revised reactor oversight process is currently undergoing a

pilot evaluation at nine plants and is scheduled for full implementation

next spring. Under the revised process, the staff will conduct quarterly

performance reviews based on a number of performance indicators and

inspection findings. A full description of the revised program is

available on the NRC web site at http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/primer.htm.

#####
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS -- REGION I

475 Allendale Road

King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-00-15 February 16, 2000

CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610)337-5330/ e-mail: dps@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan (610)337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov

NRC RETURNS TO NORMAL LEVEL OF OVERSIGHT FOLLOWING

EXIT FROM ‘ALERT’ AT INDIAN POINT 2 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is returning to its normal level of oversight for the

Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant in Buchanan, N.Y., following the facility’s exit from a "Alert"

declared there on Tuesday by its operator, Consolidated Edison Company of New York.

An “Alert” is the second-lowest emergency action level in the NRC-required emergency

response plan for nuclear power plants.

Consolidated Edison workers have stabilized the plant, which was manually shut down at 7:29

p.m. Tuesday following indications of a steam generator tube leak in one of the plant’s four steam

generators. The steam generators are components that transfer heat from the reactor systems to the

power-generating portion of a nuclear power plant. Plant safety systems performed as designed during

the shutdown.

In addition to notifying the NRC of the event in accordance with pre-established emergency

plans, Consolidated Edison notified designated state and local government officials, who responded to

the event.

The company exited the Alert at 6:50 p.m. Wednesday, when the reactor coolant system was

depressurized and cooled down, placing the plant in a state called "cold shutdown."

Consolidated Edison workers have performed radiological surveys on and off the plant site,

located about 40 miles north of New York City, and have detected no radioactivity above normal

background conditions. There may have been brief releases from the plant, but assessments at this

point indicate that any releases were far below allowable limits and would not pose any threat to public

health or safety. The company plans to continue to perform radiological surveys.

NRC monitored the situation continuously through the night Tuesday and all day Wednesday.

Agency inspectors at the site followed events, and safety specialists monitored conditions from

incident response centers in the Philadelphia-area Region I Office and NRC Headquarters in Rockville,

Md., throughout the Alert period.
The NRC will continue to oversee Consolidated Edison’s response to the event through

inspectors on site. The agency will also determine in the next several days the appropriate level of

follow-up response.

#
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 73

**Question 73:** Table 1004 (b).2 does not include entries for "cold" neutrons, (e.g., 7 x 10E-9 MeV neutrons) which are used in experiments at some research reactor facilities. What values of the quality factor, Q, and the fluence per unit dose equivalent should be used for "cold" neutrons?

**Answer:** The values for "thermal neutrons" should be used until the use of other values is approved by the NRC.

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1004 Table 1004 (b).2)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, December 13, 2017