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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 9:20-cv-81166-DMM

HOWARD COHAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

PHOENIX OF WEST PALM BEACH LLC, 

a Florida Limited Liability Company d/b/a 

BURGER KING #5777; PHOENIX OF 

RIVIERA BEACH LLC, a Florida Limited 

Liability Company d/b/a BURGER KING 

#4451,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff HOWARD COHAN and Defendants PHOENIX OF WEST PALM BEACH LLC 

d/b/a BURGER KING #5777 and PHOENIX OF RIVIERA BEACH LLC d/b/a BURGER KING 

#4451, by and through their respective undersigned counsel, pursuant to S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.4, 

hereby jointly give notice that the parties have reached a settlement in principle of this action. 

Accordingly, the parties respectfully request 14 days to submit their Joint Stipulation for Dismissal 

with Prejudice and that all pending deadlines be cancelled or stayed while the settlement 

documents are completed. 

[This space intentionally left blank. Signature blocks appear on following page.]

Case 9:20-cv-81166-DMM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2020 Page 1 of 3
2

Dated: August 28, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

s/ Gregory S. Sconzo

Gregory S. Sconzo, Esq.

FL Bar No. 0105553

The Law Office of Gregory S. Sconzo, P.A.

3825 PGA Boulevard, Suite 207

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

Tel: (561) 729-0940

Fax: (561) 491-9459

E-Mail: greg@sconzolawoffice.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

s/ Adam S. Chotiner1

Adam S. Chotiner, Esq.

FL Bar No. 0146315

Shapiro, Blasi, Wasserman & Hermann, P.A.

7777 Glades Road, Suite 400

Boca Raton, FL 33434

Tel: (561) 477-7800

Fax: (561) 477-7752

E-Mail: achotiner@sbwh.law

Attorneys for Defendants

1 Gregory S. Sconzo has provided Adam S. Chotiner with express authority to jointly 

file this notice.

Case 9:20-cv-81166-DMM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2020 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 28, 2020 I electronically filed the foregoing 

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

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

transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.

s/ Adam S. Chotiner

Adam S. Chotiner

SERVICE LIST

Howard Cohan v. Phoenix of West Palm Beach, LLC, et al. 

Case No. 9:20-cv-81166-DMM

United States District Court, Southern District of Florida

Gregory S. Sconzo, Esq.

E-Mail: greg@sconzolawoffice.com

The Law Office of Gregory S. Sconzo, P.A.

3825 PGA Boulevard, Suite 207

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

Tel.: (561) 729-0940

Fax: (561) 491-9459

Counsel for Plaintiff

Via CM/ECF

Adam S. Chotiner, Esq.

E-Mail: achotiner@sbwh.law

Shapiro, Blasi, Wasserman 

 & Hermann, P.A.

7777 Glades Road, Suite 400

Boca Raton, FL 33434

Tel.: (561) 477-7800

Fax: (561) 477-7722

Counsel for Defendants

Via CM/ECF

Case 9:20-cv-81166-DMM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2020 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Dean
Witter World Currency Fund L.P. and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      25,188,514
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,309<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,131,671<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,131,671<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,689,580<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               417,251
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,272,329
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,272,329
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,272,329
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Receivables include interest receivable of $77,309.
<F2)In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net
unrealized loss on open contracts of $(134,152).
<F3>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $601,240, accrued
management fees of $62,795, and accrued administrative expenses of
$13,752.
<F4>Total revenue includes realized trading revenue of $501,542, net
change in unrealized of $967,288 and interest income of $220,750.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CONNELL SPAIN,

Defendant,

and

CONNELL SPAIN, SR.,

Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CR-82-60-N)

Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 23, 1999

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Connell Spain, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Connell Spain, Sr., appeals the district court’s denying his

request for court records pursuant to the Freedom of Information

Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United

States v. Spain, No. CR-82-60-N (E.D. Va. June 19, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D21-2283

_____________________________

THOMAS MCNEIL,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Prohibition—Original Jurisdiction.

September 22, 2021

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293, 296–97 

(Fla. 1977) (explaining that prohibition “is preventive and not 

corrective,” the purpose of which “is to prevent the doing of 

something, not to compel the undoing of something already done”); 

Sparkman v. McClure, 498 So. 2d 892, 895 (Fla. 1986) (explaining 

that prohibition “cannot be utilized to revoke an order already

entered” and that it “will not lie where the proceedings below have 

already been completed”).

RAY, JAY, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Thomas McNeil, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
No. 01-14-00992-CV

In the First District Court of

Appeals at Houston

Jordan and Associates,

Appellant

V.

Lisa Wells,

Appellee

Appeal from the 506th Judicial District Court

Grimes County, Texas, Hon. Albert McCaig, Presiding

AFFIDAVIT OF JAY R. HARRIS

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF DALLAS

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared

Jay R. Harris, known to me to be the person whose signature appears below, and

who stated to me upon oath, as follows:

1. "My name is Jay R. Harris. I am over 21 years of age, have never

been convicted of a felony or a crime of moral turpitude, am of sound mind, and

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 5/18/2015 5:58:16 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
am otherwise qualified to make this oath and affidavit. I have personal knowledge

of the facts stated within this Affidavit, and they are true and correct.

2. I am of counsel with Walters, Balido & Crain, L.L.P. an attorney-atlaw licensed to practice in the State of Texas. The firm is counsel for Appellant

Jordan & Associates ("Jordan") in the above-numbered and styled appeal. I have

directed, overseen, and participated in the creation of the notice of appeal, the brief

of Jordan on the merits, and the reply brief I am therefore familiar with the abovenumbered and styled matter, the date the trial court signed the order denying

Jordan's motion to dismiss under Chapter 150, the date the order was file stamped,

and the date the notice of appeal was filed.

3. I miscalculated the date necessary to file the notice of appeal.

2015.

Further affiant sayeth not."

nn

401 

Jay R. Harris

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME this 19 th day of May,

(A--) (/ 14 (2,

NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF TEXAS

My Commission Expires: 9 lit7 

„5.y10 

STATE OF TEXAS

tpu.. JANET DILDINE

NOTARY PUBLIC

%PortY MY COMM. EXR 07/24/2015
§ 207.6 Use of funds. ( a ) The grantee or subgrantee must use management cost funds provided under this part in accordance with 2 CFR part 200, subpart E—Cost Principles, and only for costs related to administration of PA or HMGP, respectively. All charges must be properly documented in accordance with § 207.8(f).
( b ) Indirect costs may not be charged directly to a project or reimbursed separately, but rather are considered to be eligible management costs under this part.
( c ) Activities and costs that can be directly charged to a project with proper documentation are not eligible for funding under this part.
[72 FR 57875, Oct. 11, 2007, as amended at 79 FR 76086, Dec. 19, 2014]
### §1369. Treatment of transactions to evade liability; effect of corporate reorganization

#### (a) Treatment of transactions to evade liability

If a principal purpose of any person in entering into any transaction is to evade liability to which such person would be subject under this subtitle and the transaction becomes effective within five years before the termination date of the termination on which such liability would be based, then such person and the members of such person's controlled group (determined as of the termination date) shall be subject to liability under this subtitle in connection with such termination as if such person were a contributing sponsor of the terminated plan as of the termination date. This subsection shall not cause any person to be liable under this subtitle in connection with such plan termination for any increases or improvements in the benefits provided under the plan which are adopted after the date on which the transaction referred to in the preceding sentence becomes effective.

#### (b) Effect of corporate reorganization

For purposes of this subtitle, the following rules apply in the case of certain corporate reorganizations:

#### (1) Change of identity, form, etc.

If a person ceases to exist by reason of a reorganization which involves a mere change in identity, form, or place of organization, however effected, a successor corporation resulting from such reorganization shall be treated as the person to whom this subtitle applies.

#### (2) Liquidation into parent corporation

If a person ceases to exist by reason of liquidation into a parent corporation, the parent corporation shall be treated as the person to whom this subtitle applies.

#### (3) Merger, consolidation, or division

If a person ceases to exist by reason of a merger, consolidation, or division, the successor corporation or corporations shall be treated as the person to whom this subtitle applies.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title IV, §4069, as added Pub. L. 99–272, title XI, §11013(a), Apr. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 260.)

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 99–272, title XI, §11013(b), Apr. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 261, provided that: "Section 4069(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (as added by subsection (a)) [subsec. (a) of this section] shall apply with respect to transactions becoming effective on or after January 1, 1986."

Section effective Jan. 1, 1986, with certain exceptions, see section 11019 of Pub. L. 99–272, set out as an Effective Date of 1986 Amendment note under section 1341 of this title.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ener1, Inc., a Florida corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Jeffrey Seidel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his knowledge:





(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 results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Jeffrey SeidelJeffrey SeidelChief Financial Officer(Duly Authorized Principal Financial Officer and Duly Authorized Officer)





May 10, 2011





[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Ener1, Inc. and will be retained by Ener1, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 142

**Question 142:**
> 
(a) In compliance with 10 CFR 20.2104 (a) (2), what constitutes an acceptable attempt to obtain a record of the lifetime dose for a worker?

(b) Since there are no limits for lifetime doses (other than planned special exposures), and lifetime dose reports to workers are not required, why must licensees go to the expense of obtaining and recording these doses?

**Answer:**
> 
(a) The licensee should request this information from the worker. Alternatively, the licensee also may request this information from the worker's most recent employer for work involving radiation exposure or the worker's current employer if the individual is not employed by the licensee. If this request is denied, the licensee need make no further efforts to obtain the information; however, the individual will not be available for a planned special exposure.

(b) As explained in the Statement of Considerations (56 FR 23383, 23384) the requirement to attempt to obtain the records of lifetime cumulative doses follows one of the provisions of the guidance to Federal agencies on occupational radiation protection. Also, as stated in SECY-88-315 (available in the NRC Public Document Room), the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the revised Part 20 are consistent with implementing an NRC staff recommendation to establish a registry of radiation workers and their radiation doses. Such a registry will be of value in analyzing doses received by workers at several sites during the year, in tracking exposure trends, and will facilitate epidemiological studies of potential radiation-induced health effects.

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.2104)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, November 07, 2017
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 31.2

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, David H. Gonci, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Alliance Bancorp of New England,
    Inc.;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
    a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
    statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
    were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
    information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
    the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
    registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
    establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
    in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

    a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
       disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
       to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
       its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
       entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
       prepared;

    b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
       procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
       effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
       the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

    c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
       over financial reporting that occurred during registrant's most recent
       fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
       materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
       reporting; and

5.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
    most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
    registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
    directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

    a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
       operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
       reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
       process, summarize and report financial information; and

    b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
       employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
       control over financial reporting.



Date: March 23, 2004       /s/ David H. Gonci
                           ------------------
                           David H. Gonci
                           Senior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsThe computational structural mechanics testbed data library descriptionThe datasets created and used by the Computational Structural Mechanics Testbed software system are documented by this manual. A description of each dataset including its form, contents, and organization is presented.Document ID19900012819Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsStewart, Caroline B.*(Analytical Services and Materials, Inc., Hampton VA., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1988Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:100645-REV-1NASA-TM-100645-REV-1Accession Number90N22135Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-63-01-10Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900012819.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 5.87 Testimony of FEMA employees in private litigation. ( a ) No FEMA employee shall testify in response to a subpoena or other demand in private litigation as to any information relating to material contained in the files of the Agency, or any information acquired as part of the performance of that person's official duties or because of that person's official status, including the meaning of Agency documents.
( b ) Whenever a demand is made upon a FEMA employee, for the disclosure of information described in paragraph (a) of this section, that employee shall immediately notify the Office of Chief Counsel. The Chief Counsel, upon receipt of such notice and absent waiver of the general prohibition against employee testimony at his or her discretion, shall arrange with the appropriate United States Attorney the taking of such steps as are necessary to quash the subpoena or seek a protective order.
( c ) In the event that an immediate demand for testimony or disclosure is made in circumstances which would preclude prior notice to and consultation with the Chief Counsel, the employee shall respectfully request from the demanding authority a stay in the proceedings to allow sufficient time to obtain advice of counsel.
( d ) If the court or other authority declines to stay the effect of the demand in response to a request made in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section pending consultation with counsel, or if the court or other authority rules that the demand must be complied with irrespective of instructions not to testify or disclose the information sought, the employee upon whom the demand has been made shall respectfully decline to comply with the demand, citing these regulations and *United States ex rel. Touhy* v. *Ragen,* 340 U.S. 462 (1951).
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 05255**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 05255\05255_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05255\05255_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05255\05255_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

05255\Certification Statement Plant ID_05255.pdf Plant certification statement x 05255\Supporting Documentation\05255_BB Water Balance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

05255\Supporting Documentation\Brandy Branch Aerial.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 05255\05255_Checklist_Template_092110_version34.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

05255\05255_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.