alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:20-CV-22603-GOODMAN [CONSENT CASE]

ERIC CHAVEZ, ET AL.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GRILL ENTERPRISES, LLC AND 

RUBEN SIERRA, 

Defendants.

_______________________/

[DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

(For Erik Chavez)

Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence:

1. That Grill Enterprises, LLC failed to pay Erik Chavez the 

minimum wages required by law:

Answer Yes or No _____________

If you answered “NO” to Question 1, you are to answer no more 

questions, and please sign and date your verdict form.

If you answered “YES” to Questions 1, please answer Question 

2.

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 191-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2023 Page 1 of 4
2. That Grill Enterprises, LLC required Erik Chavez to participate 

in a “tip pool”?

Answer Yes or No _____________

If you answered “NO” to Question 2, you are to answer no more 

questions, and please sign and date your verdict form.

If you answered “YES” to Question 2, please answer Question 3.

3. That the “tip pool” during “Phase I” (from 6/23/17 to 1/4/19) was 

invalid?

Answer Yes or No _____________

4. That the “tip pool” during “Phase II” (from 1/18/19 – 3/27/20) 

was invalid?

Answer Yes or No _____________

If you answered “NO” to Questions 3 and 4, you are to answer 

no more questions, and please sign and date your verdict form.

If you answered “YES” to Questions 3 and/or 4, please answer 

Question 5.

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 191-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2023 Page 2 of 4
5. That one or both Defendants “willfully” violated the minimum 

wage laws?

Answer Yes or No _____________

6. That Erik Chavez should be awarded damages?

Answer Yes or No _____________

If your answer is “No,” you are to answer no more questions, and 

please sign and date your verdict form.

If your answer is “Yes” you must answer one of the following 

Questions, depending on your answers to Questions 3 through 5.

Phase I Questions:

Phase I: If your answer to Question 3

is “No,” answer no more “Phase I”

questions and go to the “Phase II”

questions below.

Phase I: If your answer to Question 3 is

“Yes,” and your answer to Question 5

is “Yes,” what amount is Chavez owed

from 6/23/17 to 1/4/19? $_____________

Phase I: If your answer to Question 3 is

“Yes,” and your answer to Question 5

is “No,” what amount is Chavez owed

from 6/23/18 to 1/4/19? $_____________

Phase II Questions:

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 191-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2023 Page 3 of 4
Phase II: If your answer to Question 4

is “No,” answer no more “Phase II”

questions and go to Question 7.

Phase II: If your answer to Question 4 is

“Yes,” what amount is Chavez owed

from 1/18/19 to 3/27/20? $_____________

7. That Ruben Sierra also was an employer of Erik Chavez:

Answer Yes or No _____________

SO SAY WE ALL.

___________________________

Foreperson’s Signature

DATE: ___________________

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 191-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2023 Page 4 of 4
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.602 Packing materials and containers for shipment.

(a) *Effect on tariff shift rule.* Packing materials and containers for shipment, as defined in § 10.593(m) of this subpart, are to be disregarded in determining whether the non-originating materials used in the production of the good undergo an applicable change in tariff classification set out in General Note 29(n), HTSUS. Accordingly, such materials and containers are not required to undergo the applicable change in tariff classification even if they are non-originating.

(b) *Effect on regional value content calculation.* Packing materials and containers for shipment, as defined in § 10.593(m) of this subpart, are to be disregarded in determining the regional value content of a good imported into the United States. Accordingly, in applying the build-down, build-up, or net cost method for determining the regional value content of a good imported into the United States, the value of such packing materials and containers for shipment (whether originating or non-originating) is disregarded and not included in AV, adjusted value, VNM, value of non-originating materials, VOM, value of originating materials, or NC, net cost of a good.

# Example.

Producer A of the Dominican Republic produces good C. Producer A ships good C to the United States in a shipping container that it purchased from Company B in the Dominican Republic. The shipping container is originating. The value of the shipping container determined under section § 10.596(a)(2) of this subpart is $3. Good C is subject to a regional value content requirement. The transaction value of good C is $100, which includes the $3 shipping container. The United States importer decides to use the build-up method, RVC = (VOM/AV) × 100 (*see* § 10.595(c) of this subpart), in determining whether good C satisfies the regional value content requirement. In determining the AV, adjusted value, of good C imported into the U.S., paragraph (b) of this section and the definition of AV require a $3 deduction for the value of the shipping container. Therefore, the AV is $97 ($100−$3). In addition, the value of the shipping container is disregarded and not included in the VOM, value of originating materials.
§ 333.64 Violations, penalties, and remedies. ( a ) Willful violation of the provisions of Title I or Sections 705 or 707 of the Defense Production Act, this part, or an official action, is a crime and upon conviction, a person may be punished by fine or imprisonment, or both. The maximum penalty provided by the Defense Production Act is a $10,000 fine, or one year in prison, or both.
( b ) The government may also seek an injunction from a court of appropriate jurisdiction to prohibit the continuance of any violation of, or to enforce compliance with, the Defense Production Act and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action.
( c ) In order to secure the effective enforcement of the Defense Production Act and other applicable statutes, this part, and official actions, the following are prohibited (see section 705 of the Defense Production Act; see also, for example, sections 2 and 371 of Title 18 United States Code): ( 1 ) No person may solicit, influence, or permit another person to perform any act prohibited by, or to omit any act required by, the Defense Production Act and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action.
( 2 ) No person may conspire or act in concert with any other person to perform any act prohibited by, or to omit any act required by, the Defense Production Act and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action.
( 3 ) No person shall deliver any item if the person knows or has reason to believe that the item will be accepted, redelivered, held, or used in violation of the Defense Production Act and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action. In such instances, the person must immediately notify FEMA that, in accordance with this section, delivery has not been made.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. CASE NO.: 20-cv-81205-RAR 

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS GROUP, 

 INC. d/b/a/ PAR FUNDING, et al., 

 Defendants. 

___________________________________________/ 

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND OTHER RELIEF 

 Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission hereby notifies the Court that Defendant 

Joseph LaForte has agreed to the preliminary injunction and other preliminary relief against him. 

Mr. LaForte’s counsel is working to obtain a copy of an executed consent, which will take several 

days due to Mr. LaForte’s current location. We anticipate filing the Consent before September 4, 

2020, and will notify the Court if that changes. 

Dated: August 26, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

By: s/Amie Riggle Berlin 

Amie Riggle Berlin 

Senior Trial Counsel 

Fla. Bar No. 630020 

Direct Dial: (305) 982-6322 

Email: BerlinA@sec.gov 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

801 Brickell Ave., Suite 1800 

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: (305) 982-6300 

 Facsimile: (305) 536-4154 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 26, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document 

with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, serving all parties through their counsel via CM/ECF. 

 Amie Riggle Berlin 

 Amie Riggle Berlin 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 201 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 1 of 1
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-98-113 October 1, 1998

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

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR TO HOLD PRESS CONFERENCE IN

WATERFORD

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s top official in the Northeast will hold a

press conference on Monday morning (October 5) to discuss NRC oversight of

Millstone Station. NRC Region I Administrator Hubert J. Miller will meet with

reporters at the Waterford Town Hall at 11:30 a.m.

He will discuss the current status of NRC activities at Millstone Station.

The news conference is being held as part of an NRC program to make senior

officials available to meet with news media representatives on a periodic basis to

provide briefings on subjects of current interest and answer questions from reporters

who attend.

#
§ 49.300 What acts are prohibited? ( a ) A person may not: ( 1 ) Excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or deface or attempt to excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or deface any paleontological resource located on Federal land unless this activity is conducted in accordance with the Act and this part.
( 2 ) Exchange, transport, export, receive, or offer to exchange, transport, export, or receive any paleontological resource if the person knew or should have known such resource to have been excavated or removed from Federal land in violation of any provision, rule, regulation, law, ordinance, or permit in effect under Federal law, including the Act and this part.
( 3 ) Sell or purchase or offer to sell or purchase any paleontological resource if the person knew or should have known such resource to have been excavated, removed, sold, purchased, exchanged, transported, or received from Federal land.
( 4 ) Make or submit any false record, account, or label for, or any false identification of, any paleontological resource excavated or removed from Federal land.
( b ) A person may return to the Federal land manager paleontological resources collected or obtained in violation of the Act and this part without penalty if deemed appropriate by the Federal land manager.
Figure 9

15-Mile Target Distance Limit

Anaconda Aluminum Co Col Fls Red Plt

Columbia Falls, Montana

Date: 2/17/2015

River Mile Marker

Surface Water & 

Sediment Sample Location

Rivers & Streams

Probable Point of Entry (PPE)

0 0.5 1 Miles

Prepared for:

U.S. EPA Region 8

Contract No.:

EP-S8-13-01

TDD:

1407-05

DCN:

W0157.1A.00381

Prepared By:

Weston Solutions, Inc.

START IV

Suite 100

1435 Garrison Street

Lakewood, CO 80215

Anaconda Anaconda

Aluminum Co Aluminum Co
#### §§ 333.4-333.7 [Reserved]
#### Jennie Lazes et al., Respondents, v. Kalman Kaplan et al., Appellants.

The finding of the jury is against the weight of the evidence. Nolan, P. J., Adel and Wenzel, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., dissents and votes to affirm on the following cases: *Costello*v. *Forest Hills Dwellings*(227 App. Div. 736); *Cantone*v. *City of New York*(273 App. Div. 864); *Russo*v. *Sorrentino*(250 App. Div. 882, smooth ice condition); *Fitzgerald*v. *City of New Rochelle*(259 App. Div. 1015, motion for leave to appeal denied 285 N. Y. 856, smooth ice condition); *Williams*v. *City of New York*(214 N. Y. 259, 263); *Bordonaro*v. *Bank of Blasdell*(285 N. Y. 606); *Berkowitz*v. *Prudential Sav. Bank*(269 App. Div. 988); *Ringel*v. *Jaffe*(254 App. Div. 892); *Galvano*v. *Klein, Inc.*(257 App. Div. 989); *Galvano*v. *City of New York*(260 App. Div. 926, revd. 285 N. Y. 818), and *Zahn*v. *City of New York*(274 App. Div. 807, affd. 299 N. Y. 581). MaeCrate, J., concurs with Carswell, J.
###### Editorial Note on Part 120

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 120.911 Land contributions.

The Borrower's contribution may be land (including buildings, structures and other site improvements which will be part of the Project Property) previously acquired by the Borrower.

[68 FR 57987, Oct. 7, 2003]
§ 400.105 Staff. ( a ) *Executive Director.* The Executive Director of the Board advises and assists the Board in carrying out its responsibilities under the Act, provides general direction with respect to the administration of the Board's actions, directs the activities of the staff, and performs such other duties as the Board may require.
( b ) *General Counsel.* The General Counsel of the Board provides legal advice relating to the responsibilities of the Board and performs such other duties as the Board may require.
( c ) *Secretary of the Board.* The Secretary of the Board sends notice of all meetings, prepares minutes of all meetings, maintains a complete record of all votes and actions taken by the Board, has custody of all records of the Board and performs such other duties as the Board may require.
( d ) An individual may hold more than one staff position.
[64 FR 57933, Oct. 27, 1999, as amended at 65 FR 70293, Nov. 22, 2000]
###### Editorial Note on Part 120

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 120.939 Borrower prohibition.

Neither a Borrower nor an Associate of the Borrower may purchase an interest in a Debenture Pool in which the Debenture that funded its 504 loan has been placed.
#### William A. Beaudry, in Behalf of Himself, etc., and Another, Appellants, v. John W. McKinnon and Others, Respondents, Impleaded with Another.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
EX-4.2





 Exhibit 4.2 

ONION GLOBAL LIMITED 
  

			
	Number	  	Class A Ordinary Shares

 Incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands 

Share capital is US$50,000 divided into 

500,000,000 shares of a par value of US$0.0001 each, comprising of 

(i) 254,269,312 Class A Ordinary Shares of a par value of US$0.0001 each, 

(ii) 4,840,000 Class B Ordinary Shares of a par value of US$0.0001 each, and 

(iii) 240,890,688 shares of a par value of US$0.0001 each of such class or classes (however designated) as the Board may determine
in accordance with the Articles with the Post-IPO M&A 
 THIS IS TO CERTIFY
THAT                                     is the registered holder of
                                        
Class A Ordinary Shares in the above-named Company subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association thereof. 
 EXECUTED on behalf of the said
Company on the             day of                    
20         by: 
  

			
	 DIRECTOR
## NUMBER 13 - 2 2 - 00 4 99 - C R COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN RE DAMIEN GABRIEL GARZA

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

.


## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Longoria , Hinojosa, and Silva

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria 1

On October 20 , 2022, relator Damien Gabriel Garza f iled a petition for writ of mandamus asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by denying relator ’ s motion for continuance

. Relator further filed a motion for emergency stay seeking “ to prevent further proce edings in the trial court and to preserve this Court ’ s mandamus jurisdiction

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case. ” ); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2 to consider the merits of [this] original proceeding. ” In a criminal case, t o be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that the act sought to be compelled i s a ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision and that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm. See In re Meza , 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig. proceeding); In re Harris , 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re McCann , 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the relator fails to meet both requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). Under normal circumstances, “ a trial court ’ s decision to refuse a continuance is reversible only for an abuse of discretion, ” and thus, the court ’ s ruling on a motion for continuance is discretionary rather than ministerial. Matamoros v. State , 901 S.W.2d 470, 478 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (en banc); s ee Collier v. Poe , 732 S.W.2d 332, 3 34 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (orig. proceeding) (en banc) (statin g that “ as a general rule the determination of whether to grant a continuance lies with the sound discretion of the
court ” ). Nevertheless, such decisions may be ministerial when, for instance , a statute renders the granting of a motion for continuance to be a ministerial duty. See Collier , 732 S.W.2d at 346 ; Ojeda v. State , 916 S.W.2d 609, 610 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, pet. ref ’ d)

. The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus , the record provided , and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his3 burden to obtain relief. Therefore, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and the motion for emergency stay

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8 (a) , (d)

.

NORA L. LONGORIA Justice Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2 ( b ). Delivered and filed on the 2 1 st day of October, 2022.
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Decemb er 11, 2001 Session MARY HENRY , et al. V. OBSTE TRICS AND GY NECOLOGY

CONSU LTANT S, P. C., e t al. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County No. 1-185-98 Hon. Dale C. Workman, Judge

FILED FEBRUARY 8, 2002 No. E2001-01246-COA-R3-CV

CONCURR

ING OPINION
The expert witness w hose t estimony was excluded because we found he w as not competent

to testify pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §29-26-115, and case law interpreting the statute, neverth eless is a spec ialist in hisfield of m edical p ractice and compe

tent to treat pa

tients. A review of the case la

w dealing with the me

ntioned st atute, r eveals tortured analyses in determining whether the physician is comp etent to te stify as a n expert witness. As Judge Goddard’s Opinion notes, this witness testified there is a national standard of care for training purposes in the medical schools, and he w as of the further opi n ion that he alth care provided by medical specialists “does not vary f rom community to community”. In my view, the General Assembly should revise Tenn. Code Ann. §29-26-115, and bring it in complian ce wit h how physicians are being trained and how health ca re is being administered to patients in this State.

_________________________ H ERSCHEL P ICKENS F RANKS , J.
### §117g. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 117g was editorially reclassified as section 4121 of this title.
Exhibit 4.1


 


 


Advisors Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


April 7, 2021


 


Advisors Disciplined Trust 2063


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


240 Greenwich Street, 22W Floor


New York, NY 10286


 


Re: Advisors Disciplined Trust 2063 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined
the Registration Statement File No. 333-252129 for the above captioned Fund. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement
of the references to Advisors Asset Management, Inc. as evaluator.


You are hereby authorized
to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	Advisors Asset Management, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By	/s/ ALEX R. MEITZNER
	 	 	Alex R. Meitzner
	 	 	Senior Vice President
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington TX 76011-8064

No. IV-00-03 February 18, 2000

CONTACT: Breck Henderson

Phone: 817-860-8128

Cellular: 817-917-1227

e-mail: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC TO MEET WITH PUBLIC

FOR DISCUSSION OF VALLECITOS NUCLEAR CENTER

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold an open, public meeting in Pleasanton,

Calif., on Thursday, February 24, to discuss the G.E. Vallecitos Nuclear Center in Sunol.

The meeting will be at the Pleasanton Public Library, 400 Old Bernal Ave., Pleasanton, Calif.,

from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. Participants in the meeting will include officials from General Electric Co.,

state and local government representatives, and community groups. Presentations will be preceded by

an “open house” beginning at 6 p.m. to allow the public an opportunity to talk with meeting

participants informally.

The purpose of the meeting is to inform the public about the NRC’s regulatory responsibilities

for Vallecitos, which is operated by the General Electric Co. The Agency will also discuss the research

and development activities at the site, transportation of radioactive materials to Vallecitos, the status of

permanently shutdown reactors and the operating research reactor at the facility, and the NRC’s

inspection activities. NRC staff will answer any questions and accept public comments on these

issues.

###
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.410 Filing of claim for preferential tariff treatment upon importation. ( a ) *Declaration.* In connection with a claim for preferential tariff treatment for an originating good under the US-CFTA, including an exemption from the merchandise processing fee, the U.S. importer must make a written declaration that the good qualifies for such treatment. The written declaration is made by including on the entry summary, or equivalent documentation, the symbol “CL” as a prefix to the subheading of the HTSUS under which each qualifying good is classified, or by the method specified for equivalent reporting via electronic interchange.
( b ) *Corrected declaration.* If, after making the declaration required under paragraph (a) of this section, the U.S. importer has reason to believe that the declaration or the certification or other information on which the declaration was based contains information that is not correct, the importer must, within 30 calendar days after the date of discovery of the error, make a corrected declaration and pay any duties that may be due. A corrected declaration will be effected by submission of a letter or other statement either in writing or via an authorized electronic data interchange system to the CBP office where the original declaration was filed specifying the correction (*see* §§ 10.482 and 10.483 of this subpart).
[CBP Dec. 05-07, 70 FR 10873, Mar. 7, 2005, as amended by CBP Dec. 06-39, 71 FR 76131, Dec. 20, 2006]
### §2248. Return or answer; conclusiveness

The allegations of a return to the writ of habeas corpus or of an answer to an order to show cause in a habeas corpus proceeding, if not traversed, shall be accepted as true except to the extent that the judge finds from the evidence that they are not true.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 966.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Derived from H.R. 4232, Seventy-ninth Congress, first session. At common law the return was conclusive and could not be controverted but it is now almost universally held that the return is not conclusive of the facts alleged therein. 39 C.J.S. pp. 664–666, §§98, 99.