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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CIV-81173-RAR

RAYMOND GIBSON, individually, and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

LYNN UNIVERSITY, INC.,

Defendant.

________________________________________/ 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with 

Prejudice [ECF No. 78], filed on April 29, 2021. Being fully advised, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice, with each 

party to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida this 29th day of April, 2021.

_________________________________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 9:20-cv-81173-RAR Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2021 Page 1 of 1
#### Morris Moses, Respondent, v. Stark’s, a Copartnership, et al., Appellants.

Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event, on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the credible evidence. Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.
**Exhibit 23**

 

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

 

The Board ofDirectors and Shareholders 

ARAMARK Corporation: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in registration statements (Nos. 333-53163, 333-75870, 333-89118, 333-89120, 333-89122, 333-89124, 333-89126, 333-103517) onForm S-8 and registration statement (No. 333-85050) on Form S-3 of ARAMARK Corporation and subsidiaries of our report dated November 11, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of ARAMARK Corporation and subsidiaries as of October 3,2003 and September 27, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income, cash flows and shareholders’ equity for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period ended October 3, 2003, and related financial statement schedule, whichreport appears in the October 3, 2003, annual report on Form 10-K of ARAMARK Corporation. 

 

As described in Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements, effective September 29, 2001 the Company adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, *Goodwill and Other IntangibleAssets*.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O . A P - 7 6 , 7 7 8

E X P A R T E A N A I S E S P I N O S A , A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N F O R A W R I T O F H A B E A S C O R P U S C A U S E N O . A 1 4 7 0 5 - 0 2 1 1 I N T H E 6 4 J U D I C I A L D I S T R I C T C O U R T T H F R O M H A L E C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleade d g uilty to forgery of a financ ial instrument, a

n d o r ig in a ll y r e c e iv e d d e f

e r r e d adjudication community supervision. Her g uilt

was later adjudicate d and she was sentenc ed t o eighteen months’ state jail imprisonment. She attempted to appea l her conviction, but notice o f ap p ea l was untimely filed and the appea l was dismiss ed for

want of jurisdiction. Applicant contends, inter alia , that her plea was involuntary , that she rec eived ineffe ctive of2

counsel a t the orig inal plea, a nd that she wa s denied her right t o appea l afte r adjudication beca use of adjudication counsel’s err oneous advice

. We rema nded this application to the t ri al court for finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law. The trial court conducte d a habea s hear ing, at which the court hear d testimony and rec eived evidenc e. Ba sed on the evidenc e adduce d at the hear ing, the trial court deter mined that the trial court lacke d jurisdiction to acc ept Applicant’s orig inal plea, beca use Applicant was a juvenile at the time of the offe nse. The trial court conclude s that Applicant’s counsel at the orig inal plea was ineffe ctive for failing to investiga te and discover that Applicant was a juvenile, and to a dvise her that she was not subje ct to the jurisdiction of the criminal cour t. The trial cour

t finds that Applicant would not have pleade d g uilty

to the char g e had she known that she wa s not subject to the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The trial court also conclude s that Applicant was denied her rig ht to appea l beca use h er counsel at adjudication failed to proper ly file a motion for new trial, and there afte r ad v i s ed App l i ca nt incorre ctly reg arding the deadline for filing notice of appea l. Applicant is entitled to relief

. Ex parte Hue rta , 692 S.W .2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). Relief is g rante d. The judgme nt in Cause No. A14705-0211 in the 64 J udicial District t h Court of Hale County

is set aside, and A

pplicant is remande d to the custody of t he sheriff of Hale County to answe r the char g es as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue any nece ssary bench w arr ant within 10 day s after the mandate of this Court issues. Co p ie s o f th is o p in ion shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice–Corre ct io n a l I nstitut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division. Deliver ed: April 25, 2012 Do Not Publish
Exhibit 99.3
                                                                    ------------

                            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  Amended Quarterly Report of Univercell Holdings,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB/A2 for the period ended March 31, 2002 as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  Sean  Y.  Fulda,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  President  and the
Principal  Financial  Officer  of  the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
undersigned  has  reviewed  the  Report and to the knowledge of the undersigned:

          (1)  The  Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or  15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

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

                                       /s/  Sean Y. Fulda

                                       Sean Y. Fulda
                                       Chief Executive Officer, President and
                                       Principal Financial Officer
                                       September 10, 2002
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-97-52 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 (Thursday, July 3, 1997)

Roger Hannah (404) 562-4417

NRC STAFF TO HOLD CONFERENCE WITH CP&L TO DISCUSS

APPARENT VIOLATION AT HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a

predecisional enforcement conference with Carolina Power & Light

Company on Tuesday, July 8, to discuss an apparent violation of

NRC regulations involving a maintenance procedure revision.

That revision allowed the plant staff to remove the

containment missile shields while the temperature and pressure of

the reactor system were still at operating levels although the

reactor was shut down. The missile shields are large concrete

structures placed in front of openings in the plant’s containment

building during outages. The shields are designed to prevent

objects from being blown into containment during high winds and

damaging equipment. Those openings are closed when the plant is

producing power.

The meeting will be held in the NRC Atlanta office, located

at 61 Forsyth Street, Room 24T20, at 1:00 p.m. It will be open

to observation by the public.

Although the apparent violation was identified by the

plant’s staff and corrected, the NRC is concerned that CP&L

failed to recognize that the procedure change would require a

change to the plant’s technical specifications.

NRC officials said the decision to hold a predecisional

enforcement conference does not mean that a determination has

been made that a violation has occurred or that enforcement

action will be taken. The purpose is to discuss apparent

violations, their causes, and safety significance; to provide the

licensee with an opportunity to point out any errors that may

have been made in NRC inspection reports; and to enable the

company to outline its proposed corrective actions.

No decision on the apparent violation or any contemplated

enforcement action, such as a civil penalty, will be made at the

conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC officials at a

later time.
#
#### Max S. Grifenhagen, as Sheriff of the County of New York, and Another, Respondents, v. Whilden & Hancock, New York, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
§ 206.228 Allowable costs. General policies for determining allowable costs are established in2 CFR 200, subpart E. Exceptions to those policies as allowed in 2 CFR 200, subpart E and 2 CFR 200.102 are explained below. ( a ) *Eligible direct costs* — ( 1 ) *Applicant-owned equipment.* Reimbursement for ownership and operation costs of applicant-owned equipment used to perform eligible work shall be provided in accordance with the following guidelines: ( i ) *Rates established under State guidelines.* In those cases where an applicant uses reasonable rates which have been established or approved under State guidelines, in its normal daily operations, reimbursement for applicant-owned equipment which has an hourly rate of $75 or less shall be based on such rates. Reimbursement for equipment which has an hourly rate in excess of $75 shall be determined on a case by case basis by FEMA.
( ii ) *Rates established under local guidelines.* Where local guidelines are used to establish equipment rates, reimbursement will be based on those rates or rates in a Schedule of Equipment Rates published by FEMA, whichever is lower. If an applicant certifies that its locally established rates do not reflect actual costs, reimbursement may be based on the FEMA Schedule of Equipment Rates, but the applicant will be expected to provide documentation if requested. If an applicant wishes to claim an equipment rate which exceeds the FEMA Schedule, it must document the basis for that rate and obtain FEMA approval of an alternate rate.
( iii ) *No established rates.* The FEMA Schedule of Equipment Rates will be the basis for reimbursement in all cases where an applicant does not have established equipment rates.
( 2 ) *Force Account Labor Costs.* The straight- or regular-time salaries and benefits of a recipient's or subrecipient's permanently employed personnel are: ( i ) Eligible in calculating the cost of eligible permanent repair, restoration, and replacement of facilities under section 406 of the Stafford Act;
( ii ) Eligible, at the Administrator's discretion, in calculating the cost of eligible debris removal work under sections 403(a)(3)(A), 502(a)(5), and 407 of the Stafford Act for a period not to exceed 30 consecutive calendar days, provided the recipient's or subrecipient's permanently employed personnel are dedicated solely to eligible debris removal work for any major disaster or emergency declared by the President on or after October 27, 2012, in response to Hurricane Sandy; and
( iii ) Not eligible in calculating the cost of other eligible emergency protective measures under sections 403 and 502 of the Stafford Act, except for those costs associated with host state evacuation and sheltering, as established in § 206.202.
( 3 ) Administrative and management costs for major disasters and emergencies will be paid in accordance with 44 CFR part 207.
( b ) [Reserved]
[55 FR 2307, Jan. 23, 1990, as amended at 58 FR 47996, Sept. 14, 1993; 63 FR 64426, Nov. 20, 1998; 64 FR 55161, Oct. 12, 1999; 72 FR 57875, Oct. 11, 2007; 77 FR 67290, Nov. 9, 2012; 82 FR 44, Jan. 3, 2017]
-79.0 -78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 -75.5

 38.0

 38.5

 39.0

 39.5

 40.0

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/26

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 77.38 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★

■ ■ ■ ■

★

●

●

●

★

●

● ● ●
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61027-61028]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23002]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the National Cancer Institute Director's Consumer Liaison Group.
    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to 
space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in 
advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Director's Consumer 
Liaison Group.
    Date: November 4, 2004.
    Time: 3 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.
    Agenda: Report from NCI Listens and Learns Operations Working 
Group/Discussion; Report from NCI Listens and Learns Promotions 
Working Group/Discussion; Report from NCI Listens and Learns Summit 
Working Group/Discussion; Report from NCI Listens and Learns 
Evaluation Working Group/Discussion; Next Steps.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 
6116 Executive Boulevard, Suite 220, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Nancy Caliman, Executive Secretary, Office of 
Liaison Activities, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer 
Institute, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Suite 220, MSC8324, Bethesda, 
MD 20892, (301) 496-0307, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6b080a0702060a05052b060a020745050203450c041d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7310121f1a1e121d1d331e121a1f5d1d1a1b5d141c05">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, 
telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person. Information is also available 
on the Institute's/Center's home page: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/dclg/dclg.htm, where an agenda and any additional 
information for the meeting will be posted when available.

(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)


[[Page 61028]]


    Dated: October 5, 2004.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-23002 Filed 10-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### §7. Repealed. Pub. L. 86–3, §§15, 23, Mar. 18, 1959, 73 Stat. 11, 13; Pub. L. 96–470, title I, §110, Oct. 19, 1980, 94 Stat. 2239

Section, acts Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339, §76, 31 Stat. 155; Apr. 8, 1904, ch. 948, 33 Stat. 164; Mar. 4, 1913, ch. 141, §3, 37 Stat. 737, directed United States Commissioner of Labor Statistics to assemble and report on statistical details relating to all departments of labor in Territory of Hawaii.
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-107 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 1
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2014-0363 Directorate Identifier: 2014-NE-08-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 6.0 $ 510.00 $ 510.00 50 $25,500.00

Failed part replcmt $ 0.00 $4,031 $4,031.00 25 $100,775.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $126,275

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
Exhibit 4.393

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 181206 dated May 31, 2020

 

For Rendering

 

Telecommunication services for provision of communication channels

 

This License is granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

Mobile TeleSystems

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 
 (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027700149124

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

7740000076

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

4, Marksistskaya str., Moscow, 109147

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until May 31, 2025.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated March 02, 2020 No. 89-рчс

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 2 sheets.

 

	
Deputy Head
    	
/signature/   A.А. Pankov
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp   here 
    	
 
    
	
Official seal: 
    MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND   MASS 
   COMMUNICATIONS 
   OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
   FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION
   IN THE SPHERE 
   OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION 
   TECHNOLOGY 
   AND MASS MEDIA
   PSRN 1087746736296
    	
 
    


 

CN 118276
Record of Contacts

FDMS Docket No. FAA-2011-0992

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

Transport Canada Derek Ferguson 5/25/2011 No Objections

Transport Canada Derek Ferguson 5/25/2011 No Objections

Bombardier 

Aerospace

Kety Bussolo 5/25/2011 No Objections
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Shore Financial Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven M. Belote, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

 

Date: March 18, 2005 

 

This certificate accompanies this Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and will not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 

 

71
### §1811. Certificate of registration required

#### (a) Persons engaged in any farm labor contracting activity

No person shall engage in any farm labor contracting activity, unless such person has a certificate of registration from the Secretary specifying which farm labor contracting activities such person is authorized to perform.

#### (b) Hire, employ, or use of any individual to perform farm labor contracting activities by farm labor contractor; liability of farm labor contractor for violations

A farm labor contractor shall not hire, employ, or use any individual to perform farm labor contracting activities unless such individual has a certificate of registration, or a certificate of registration as an employee of the farm labor contractor employer, which authorizes the activity for which such individual is hired, employed, or used. The farm labor contractor shall be held responsible for violations of this chapter or any regulation under this chapter by any employee regardless of whether the employee possesses a certificate of registration based on the contractor's certificate of registration.

#### (c) Possession and exhibition of certificate

Each registered farm labor contractor and registered farm labor contractor employee shall carry at all times while engaging in farm labor contracting activities a certificate of registration and, upon request, shall exhibit that certificate to all persons with whom they intend to deal as a farm labor contractor or farm labor contractor employee.

#### (d) Refusal or failure to produce certificate

The facilities and the services authorized by the Act of June 6, 1933 (29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.), known as the Wagner-Peyser Act, shall be denied to any farm labor contractor upon refusal or failure to produce, when asked, a certificate of registration.

(Pub. L. 97–470, title I, §101, Jan. 14, 1983, 96 Stat. 2587.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Wagner-Peyser Act, referred to in subsec. (d), is act June 6, 1933, ch. 49, 48 Stat. 113, which is classified generally to chapter 4B (§49 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 49 of this title and Tables.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 90 days from Jan. 14, 1983, see section 524 of Pub. L. 97–470, set out as a note under section 1801 of this title.