alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 5.82 Definitions. For purposes of this subpart, the following terms have the meanings ascribed to them in this section: ( a ) *Demand* refers to a subpoena, order, or other demand of a court of competent jurisdiction, or other specific authority (e.g., an administrative or State legislative body), signed by the presiding officer, for the production, disclosure, or release of FEMA records or information or for the appearance and testimony of FEMA personnel as witnesses in their official capacities.
( b ) *Employee of the Agency* includes all officers and employees of the United States appointed by or subject to the supervision, jurisdiction or control of the Administrator of FEMA.
( c ) *Private litigation* refers to any legal proceeding which does not involve as a named party the United States Government, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or any official thereof in his or her official capacity.
#### FILIPI, Respondent, v. DOUGHERTY, Appellant.

(191 N. W. 947.)

(File No. 5134.

Opinion filed January 22, 1923.)

1. Animals — Trespass—Verdict — Sufficiency of Evidence — Verdict for Damage by Cattle Sustained1.

Evidence held sufficient to support a verdict for ¡¡>500 for damage to hay and grain done by cattle.

2. Costs — Appeal and) Error — -Supreme Court May Assess Damages Against Unsuccessful Appellant.

Under Rev. Code 1919, Sec. 2601, Subd. 5, as amended by Laws 1919, c. 158, an unsuccessful appellant may be taxed damages for the delay -caused by his appeal.

Appeal from Circuit Cou-rt, Mellette County; Hon. N. D. Burch, Judge.

Action by J. J. Eilipi against M. P. Dougherty. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*P. A. Hosford,*of Winner, Appellant.

*C. F. Manson,*of Wlhite River, for Respondent.

GATES, J.

This is an action for -damages to plaintiff’s corn in the field, to -hay in the shock in the field, and to stacked hay at plaintiff’s barn done by defendant’s cattle at divers times from August, 1919, to January, 1920. The jury awarded plaintiff $500. From the judgment and an order denying a new trial, -defendant appeals.

[1] There was evidence tending to show that defendant’s cattle destroyed the corn, and that such; corn was worth from $300 to $360. There was evidence tending to show that plaintiff had about 40 tons of hay in the shock in- the field and. about 35 tons of hay in the stack at his -barn, all of which was -consumed and was of the value of from $750 to $900, and that defendant's cattle were seen frequently at both places consuming this hay; but it also appears that Leedom’s cattle also consumed a portion of the hay in the shock, and that Leedom’s horses and1 plaintiff’s own horses also consumed a part of the hay in the stack.

It appeared that' respondent had obtained a judgment against Leedom in the sum1 of $200 for the damage done by his cattle and -horses. It was manifestly impossible for respondent’s four horses to have eaten more than 8 to-ns of hay during the period. So that, placing the lowest value upon the damage testified to, *228and deducting the amount of the judgment plus the value of the ■maximum amount of hay that could possibly have been consumed by respondent’s four horses therefrom., the residuum is greatly in excess of the amount of the verdict.

[2] The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed. As damages for the delay caused by the taking of this appeal respondent will be awarded the sum. of $50, pursuant to the provisions of subdivision 5, § 2601, Rev. Codte 1919, as amended by chapter 158, Laws 1919, which sum the clerk will tax as a part of the costs in this court.

Note — Reported in 191 N. W. 947. See American Key-Numbered Digest, (1) Animals, Key-No. 100(4), 3 C. J. Sec. 468; (2) Costs, Key-No. 260(1), 15 C. J., Sec. 691-692.
SCI Facebook link to KKM’s Response to Demand Letter:

https://shootersconnectionstoreassets.s3.amazonaws.com/KKM+Response+to+Akai+Demand.PDF?fbclid

=IwAR03ZjJ0q6J8HsbbTnnpk0558_igo7JOq1C08GhlvQ30U8xecW6QdBlWPoM

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-99 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 1
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6583

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CECIL VANN GILBERT , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Greenville

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 4:14

- cr - 00051

- FL

- 1; 4:15

- cv - 00104

- FL )

Submitted : November 30, 2018 Decided: December 3, 2018

Before KING and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Cecil Vann Gilbert, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Cecil Vann Gilbert seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or jud ge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court den ies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Mill er - El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322,
336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at
484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gilbert has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
### §288n. Travel and related expenses

Funds expended by the Senate Legal Counsel for travel and related expenses shall be subject to the same regulations and limitations (insofar as they are applicable) as those which the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration prescribes for application to travel and related expenses for which payment is authorized to be made from the contingent fund of the Senate.

(Pub. L. 98–51, title I, §106, July 14, 1983, 97 Stat. 267.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Congressional Operations Appropriation Act, 1984, which is title I of the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1984, and not as part of title VII of Pub. L. 95–521 which in part comprises this chapter.

Section, as it relates to funds expended by the Legislative Counsel of the Senate, is classified to section 276b of this title.
### SUBCHAPTER IV—CHILD CARE
### §1975a. Overseas travel to accompany members of House leadership

#### (a) Travel authorized

#### (1) In general

A member of the Capitol Police may travel outside of the United States for official duty if—

(A) that travel is with, or in preparation for, travel of a Member of the House of Representatives who holds a position in a House Leadership Office, including travel of the Member as part of a congressional delegation; and

(B) the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives gives prior approval to the travel of the member of the Capitol Police.

#### (2) Definitions

In this subsection—

(A) the term "House Leadership office" 1 means an office of the House of Representatives for which the appropriation for salaries and expenses of the office for the year involved is provided under the heading "House Leadership Offices" in the act making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year involved;

(B) the term "Member of the House of Representatives" includes a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the Congress; and

(C) the term "United States" means each of the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the territories and possessions of the United States.

#### (b) Reimbursement from Sergeant at Arms

#### (1) In general

From amounts made available for salaries and expenses of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives shall reimburse the Capitol Police for the overtime pay, travel, and related expenses of any member of the Capitol Police who travels under the authority of this section.

#### (2) Use of amounts received

Any amounts received by the Capitol Police for reimbursements under paragraph (1) shall be credited to the accounts established for the general expenses or salaries of the Capitol Police, and shall be available to carry out the purposes of such accounts during the fiscal year in which the amounts are received and the following fiscal year.

#### (c) Effective date

This section shall apply with respect to fiscal year 2017 and each succeeding fiscal year.

(Pub. L. 115–31, div. I, title I, §110, May 5, 2017, 131 Stat. 575.)

1 So in original. The word "office" probably should be capitalized.
### §464. Civil action for enforcement

#### (a) Complaint; investigation; commencement of action by Secretary, member or subordinate body of labor organization; jurisdiction

Upon the written complaint of any member or subordinate body of a labor organization alleging that such organization has violated the provisions of this subchapter (except section 461 of this title) the Secretary shall investigate the complaint and if the Secretary finds probable cause to believe that such violation has occurred and has not been remedied he shall, without disclosing the identity of the complainant, bring a civil action in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the labor organization for such relief (including injunctions) as may be appropriate. Any member or subordinate body of a labor organization affected by any violation of this subchapter (except section 461 of this title) may bring a civil action in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the labor organization for such relief (including injunctions) as may be appropriate.

#### (b) Venue

For the purpose of actions under this section, district courts of the United States shall be deemed to have jurisdiction of a labor organization (1) in the district in which the principal office of such labor organization is located, or (2) in any district in which its duly authorized officers or agents are engaged in conducting the affairs of the trusteeship.

#### (c) Presumptions of validity or invalidity of trusteeship

In any proceeding pursuant to this section a trusteeship established by a labor organization in conformity with the procedural requirements of its constitution and bylaws and authorized or ratified after a fair hearing either before the executive board or before such other body as may be provided in accordance with its constitution or bylaws shall be presumed valid for a period of eighteen months from the date of its establishment and shall not be subject to attack during such period except upon clear and convincing proof that the trusteeship was not established or maintained in good faith for a purpose allowable under section 462 of this title. After the expiration of eighteen months the trusteeship shall be presumed invalid in any such proceeding and its discontinuance shall be decreed unless the labor organization shall show by clear and convincing proof that the continuation of the trusteeship is necessary for a purpose allowable under section 462 of this title. In the latter event the court may dismiss the complaint or retain jurisdiction of the cause on such conditions and for such period as it deems appropriate.

(Pub. L. 86–257, title III, §304, Sept. 14, 1959, 73 Stat. 531.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO. 20-61249 -CIV-DIMITROULEAS

JHON SARMIENTO, Individually and 

on behalf of all others similary situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SCHEAR CONSTRUCTION, LLC, a 

Florida Limited Liability Company,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

SECOND NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF CONSENT TO JOIN

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Civil Procedure 

for the Southern District of Florida, Plaintiff, Jhon Sarmiento, hereby notifies this Court of the 

withdrawal of the Consent to Join for Opt-in Plaintiff, Jesus Alvarado. [See D.E. 24-1].

No settlement has been reached between any of the Plaintiffs, including Jesus Alvarado, 

and Defendant. Rather, Opt-in Plaintiff, Jesus Alvarado seeks to withdraw his Consent to Join 

and re-file his claim in a related case currently pending in the Eastern District of New York, 

Torres v. Schear Construction, LLC, 1:2021cv04609.

Respectfully submitted this 31st day of August, 2021.

Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ ANDREW R. FRISCH

Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.

MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A

8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000

Plantation, FL 33324

T (954) 318-0268; F (954) 327-30313

afrisch@forthepeople.com 

Case 0:20-cv-61249-WPD Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFIY that on this 31st day of August, 2021, I electronically filed the 

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of 

electronic filing to all counsel of record.

 

 /s/ Andrew R. Frisch 

 Andrew R. Frisch

Case 0:20-cv-61249-WPD Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.771 Textile or apparel goods. ( a ) *De minimis.* Except as provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a textile or apparel good that is not an originating good under the MFTA because certain fibers or yarns used in the production of the component of the good that determines the tariff classification of the good do not undergo an applicable change in tariff classification set out in General Note 27(h), HTSUS, will be considered to be an originating good if the total weight of all such fibers is not more than seven percent of the total weight of that component. ( 1 ) *Exception.* A textile or apparel good containing elastomeric yarns in the component of the good that determines the tariff classification of the good will be considered to be an originating good only if such yarns are wholly formed in the territory of a Party.
( 2 ) *Yarn, fabric, or group of fibers.* For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, in the case of a textile or apparel good that is a yarn, fabric, or group of fibers, the term “component of the good that determines the tariff classification of the good” means all of the fibers in the yarn, fabric, or group of fibers.
( b ) *Textile or apparel goods put up in sets.* Notwithstanding the specific rules specified in General Note 27(h), HTSUS, textile or apparel goods classifiable as goods put up in sets for retail sale as provided for in General Rule of Interpretation 3, HTSUS, will not be considered to be originating goods under the MFTA unless each of the goods in the set is an originating good or the total value of the non-originating goods in the set does not exceed ten percent of the appraised value of the set.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

Phone: 610/337-5330 Fax: 610/337-5241

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

I-97-39 April 11, 1997

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan

NRC STAFF CITES WASHINGTON HOSPITAL CENTER

FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS, PROPOSES $5,000 FINE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a

$5,000 civil penalty against Washington Hospital Center in

Washington, D.C., for five alleged violations of agency

requirements in its use of radioactive materials for medical

services.

The errors were found during an NRC inspection conducted

September 17 through 26 of last year and a subsequent

investigation by the NRC Office of Investigations.

Two of the alleged violations involve multiple instances of

failure to perform required thyroid bioassays, or exposure

measurements, on employees, as well as a failure to provide

adequate training in this area. The other three violations

pertain to the loss of an iodine-125 seed; failure to perform an

adequate survey in an attempt to recover the missing material;

and failure to notify the NRC of the loss of the material.

In the case of the bioassay violations, the NRC determined a

number of hospital staffers failed to measure their thyroid

exposure within 72 hours of administration of iodine-131 to

patients, even though the facility's radiation safety officer

(RSO) reminded them to do so. More importantly, the RSO and

Radiation Safety Committee chairman were aware of the problem but

apparently failed to recognize its significance; did not raise

the issue in a committee meeting or to upper management; and did

not take effective corrective action to prevent a recurrence.

The performance of bioassays is important because individuals

involved in the preparation and administration of iodine-131

doses can receive a significant uptake of the radioactive

material. Minus a bioassay, any unsafe levels of exposure could

go undetected.

"Collectively, the two violations are of significant

regulatory concern because they are indicative of a lack of

management attention towards licensed responsibilities," Region 1

Administrator Hubert J. Miller wrote to Washington Hospital

Center.
Regarding the iodine-125 seed, the NRC has expressed concern

about the potential safety consequences of the loss of licensed

material. The seed that could have delivered a significant

radiation dose if it had come into contact with an individual's

skin. What's more, the NRC has expressed concern that, due to an

apparent lack of understanding of the requirements, the loss of

the seed had not been reported to the agency as of January 31,

even after the NRC informed the hospital it had to be reported.

The hospital has 30 days to pay the proposed fine or request

in writing that all or part of the penalty be withdrawn.

#
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 78935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30713]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 8989]

Notice of Meeting of the International Telecommunication Advisory 
Committee and Preparations for Upcoming International 
Telecommunications Meetings

    This notice announces a meeting of the Department of State's 
International Telecommunication advisory Committee (ITAC) to review the 
activities of the Department of State in international meetings on 
international communications and information policy over the last 
quarter and prepare for similar activities in the next quarter. The 
ITAC will meet on January 22, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. EST at: 1300 I Street 
NW., (suite 400), Washington, DC, 20005 to provide an update on 
committee membership (see FR 2014-28411); review the preparations for 
and outcomes of international telecommunications meetings of the 
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the Inter-American 
Telecommunications Commission, Organization for Economic Cooperation 
and Development, and Asia Pacific, and announce preparations for 
similar activities. In particular, preparations for the ITU Conference 
Preparatory Meeting (CPM) for the 2015 World Radiocommunication 
Conference will be highlighted.
    Attendance at this meeting is open to the public as seating 
capacity allows. The public will have an opportunity to provide 
comments at this meeting at the invitation of the chair. Further 
details on this ITAC meeting will be announced on the Department of 
State's email list, ITAC@lmlist.state.gov. Use of the ITAC list is 
limited to meeting announcements and confirmations, distribution of 
agendas and other relevant meeting documents. The Department welcomes 
any U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident to remain on or join the 
ITAC listserv by providing his or her name, email address, and the 
company, organization, or community that he or she is representing, if 
any. Persons wishing to request reasonable accommodation during the 
meeting should contact jacksonln@state.gov or gadsdensf@state.gov not 
later than January 15, 2015. Requests made after that time will be 
considered, but might not be able to be fulfilled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact Franz Zichy at 202-647-
5778, zichyfj@state.gov.

    Dated: December 23, 2014.
Julie N. Zoller,
Senior Deputy Coordinator, International Communications and Information 
Policy, U.S. State Department.
[FR Doc. 2014-30713 Filed 12-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-P
```
### §1861. Rules and regulations

The Secretary may issue such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out this chapter, consistent with the requirements of chapter 5 of title 5.

(Pub. L. 97–470, title V, §511, Jan. 14, 1983, 96 Stat. 2598.)

#### **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.
§ 107.660 Other items required to be filed by Licensee with SBA. ( a ) *Reports to owners.* You must give SBA a copy of any report you furnish to your investors, including any prospectus, quarterly or annual valuation data, materials presented to investors during any meetings (including any annual meeting), fund management demographic information, letter, or other publication concerning your financial operations or those of any Portfolio Concern no later than 30 calendar days after you submit the report to your private investors.
( b ) *Documents filed with SEC.* You must give SBA a copy of any report, application or document you file with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
( c ) *Litigation reports.* When you become a party to litigation or other proceedings, you must give SBA a report within 30 days that describes the proceedings and identifies the other parties involved and your relationship to them. ( 1 ) The proceedings covered by this paragraph (c) include any action by you, or by your security holder(s) in a personal or derivative capacity, against an officer, director, Investment Adviser or other Associate of yours for alleged breach of official duty.
( 2 ) SBA may require you to submit copies of the pleadings and other documents SBA may specify.
( 3 ) Where proceedings have been terminated by settlement or final judgment, you must promptly advise SBA of the terms.
( 4 ) This paragraph (c) does not apply to collection actions or proceedings to enforce your ordinary creditors' rights.
( d ) *Notification of criminal charges.* If any officer, director, or general partner of the Licensee, or any other person who was required by SBA to complete a personal history statement in connection with your license, is charged with or convicted of any criminal offense other than a misdemeanor involving a minor motor vehicle violation, you must report the incident to SBA within 5 calendar days. Such report must fully describe the facts which pertain to the incident.
( e ) *Other reports.* You must file any other reports that SBA may require by written directive.
[61 FR 3189, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 5866, Feb. 5, 1998; 88 FR 46011, July 18, 2023]