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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No.: 9:20-cv-81210-DMM

AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH 

INSTITUTE, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NATROL, LLC, 

Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

MEDIATOR’S REPORT

In accordance with Local Rule 16.2(f)(1) of the Local Rules, the undersigned Mediator 

reports that a mediation conference was held September 21, 2020 and that all of the parties and 

their representatives attended via video and/or telephone conference and the case did not settle at 

the mediation, but the parties are continuing to discuss settlement with the mediator. 

 Respectfully Submitted, 

 MARK STEIN LAW 

 2999 NE 191st, Suite 330 

 Aventura, FL 33180 

 (305) 356-7550 – voice 

 By: /s/ Mark E. Stein, Esq. 

 Mark E. Stein, Esq., 

Mediator

Case 9:20-cv-81210-DMM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 9:20-cv-81210 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

document with the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being 

served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service List in 

the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by 

CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized 

to receive electronically notices of electronic filing. 

Via Email: adam.bialek@wilsonelser.com; 

amy.baker@wilsonelser.com; 

sarah.fink@wilsonelser.com 

Amy L. Baker, Esq. 

Sara Fink, Esq. 

Adam Bialek, Esq. 

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & 

Dicker LLP 

150 E 42nd Street 

New York, NY 10017 

Counsel for Plaintiff

Via Email: Sandra.Wunderlich@tuckerellis.com

Sandra J. Wunderlich, Esq. 

Tucker Ellis LLP 

100 South 4th Street, Suite 600 

St. Louis, MO 63102 

Counsel for Defendant

 /s/ Mark E. Stein, Esq. 

 Mark E. Stein, Esq. 

 Florida Bar No. 818666

Case 9:20-cv-81210-DMM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 2 of 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 134

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 134.1302 Who may appeal a HUBZone status protest determination?

Appeals from HUBZone status protest determinations may be filed with OHA by the protested concern, the protester, or the contracting officer responsible for the procurement affected by the protest determination.
Exhibit 23


            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statement of Union Community Bancorp on Form S-8, File Number 333-68837,  of our
report,  dated  January 28, 2005,  on our audits of the  consolidated  financial
statements of Union  Community  Bancorp as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 and for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, which report
is incorporated by reference in Union Community  Bancorp's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004.





/s/ BKD, LLP

BKD, LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana
March 28, 2005
Exhibit 32.1  Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 
  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cover-All Technologies Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John W. Roblin, Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my 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. Date:  May 13, 2009

/s/ John W. Roblin
Name:
John W. Roblin
Title:
Chief Executive Officer  24
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         476,280
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               478,780
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 488,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,122,056
<BONDS>                                        281,697
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,466
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,950,205)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   488,014
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  333,686
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (333,686)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (333,686)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (333,686)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 10.136 Suspension of liquidation.

Liquidation of an entry covering merchandise for which a declaration of intent has been made pursuant to § 10.134 and any required deposit of duties made, shall be suspended until proof of use is furnished or the 3-year period allowed for production thereof has expired.

[T.D. 71-139, 36 FR 10726, June 2, 1971]
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 96-40655

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MOSES ROGERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

( 9-95-CR-26-1 )

__________________________________________

February 18, 1997

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM*:

Moses Rogers appeals his sentence after being convicted on a

guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He

challenges his base offense level; the two-level increase for

possession of a firearm and the two-level increase for reckless

endangerment; and the denial of a three-level decrease for

acceptance of responsibility.
The district court did not clearly err either in calculating

Rogers’ base offense level by including all drug quantities

comprising his relevant conduct, United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d

114, 118, 120 (5th cir. 1995), or in finding that Rogers’

possession of a firearm was relevant conduct. United States v.

Paulk, 917 F.2d 879, 884 (5th Cir. 1990). And, the court did not

commit reversible error by finding that Rogers’ reckless

endangerment was part of the same course of conduct as the offense

of conviction. See Vital 68 F.3d at 120. Finally, it did not err

in denying Rogers a decrease for acceptance of responsibility,

because Rogers continued to engage in the same course of criminal

conduct and he contested his involvement in offenses constituting

relevant conduct. See United States v. Smith, 13 F.3d 860, 866

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 2151 (1994).

Accordingly, Rogers’ sentence is

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

# Licensing of Industrial Radiographers at NRC Licensed Operating Reactors and Reactor Construction Sites

## HPPOS-207 PDR-9111210359

See the letter from D. A. Nussbaumer to All Agreement States dated August 29, 1983.

This letter states that Agreement States radiography licensees working at NRC licensed operating reactors and at reactor construction sites are subject to the Agreement State's jurisdiction, unless other factors apply. Factors that may apply include exclusive federal jurisdiction over the land where the reactor is located or the reactor is being built or operated by a federal agency. HPPOS-197 contains a related topic.

The NRC received inquiries concerning the licensing of industrial radiography operations not only at reactor construction sites, but also at NRC licensed operating reactors. In some cases, the radiography was performed by contracted radiographers and in other cases by the utility. The specific question asked was whether such radiography operations were considered to be "directly connected with operations" and subject to exclusive NRC jurisdiction.

The OELD reviewed the question and advised that such radiography is subject to Agreement State jurisdiction when occurring in Agreement States (unless other factors apply such as exclusive federal jurisdiction over the land where the reactor is sited or the reactor is being built or operated by a federal agency).

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 34, 10 CFR 150.20

**Subject codes:** 11.5, 12.2, 12.9

**Applicability:** All

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, October 17, 2017
§ 4300.12 What is the definition of a Native? Natives are: ( a ) Native Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts of whole or part blood living in Alaska at the time of the Treaty of Cession of Alaska to the United States, and their descendants of whole or part blood; and
( b ) Indians and Eskimos who, between 1867 and September 1, 1937, migrated into Alaska from Canada, and their descendants of whole or part blood.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsFire suppression in human-crew spacecraftFire extinguishment agents range from water and foam in early-design spacecraft (Halon 1301 in the present Shuttle) to carbon dioxide proposed for the Space Station Freedom. The major challenge to spacecraft fire extinguishment design and operations is from the micro-gravity environment, which minimizes natural convection and profoundly influences combustion and extinguishing agent effectiveness, dispersal, and post-fire cleanup. Discussed here are extinguishment in microgravity, fire-suppression problems anticipated in future spacecraft, and research needs and opportunities.Document ID19910011869Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsFriedman, Robert*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH., United States)*Dietrich, Daniel L.*(Sverdrup Technology, Inc., Brook Park OH., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1991Subject CategorySpace TransportationReport/Patent NumberE-6100NASA-TM-104334NAS 1.15:104334Meeting InformationMeeting: Halon Alternatives Technical Working ConferenceLocation: Albuquerque, NMCountry: United StatesStart Date: April 30, 1991End Date: May 1, 1991Sponsors:New Mexico Univ.,Center for Global Environmental TechnologiesAccession Number91N21182Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 323-53-62CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS3-25266Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910011869.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
### §9803. Guaranteed renewability in multiemployer plans and certain multiple employer welfare arrangements

#### (a) In general

A group health plan which is a multiemployer plan (as defined in section 414(f)) or which is a multiple employer welfare arrangement may not deny an employer continued access to the same or different coverage under such plan, other than—

(1) for nonpayment of contributions;

(2) for fraud or other intentional misrepresentation of material fact by the employer;

(3) for noncompliance with material plan provisions;

(4) because the plan is ceasing to offer any coverage in a geographic area;

(5) in the case of a plan that offers benefits through a network plan, because there is no longer any individual enrolled through the employer who lives, resides, or works in the service area of the network plan and the plan applies this paragraph uniformly without regard to the claims experience of employers or a factor described in section 9802(a)(1) in relation to such individuals or their dependents; or

(6) for failure to meet the terms of an applicable collective bargaining agreement, to renew a collective bargaining or other agreement requiring or authorizing contributions to the plan, or to employ employees covered by such an agreement.

#### (b) Multiple employer welfare arrangement

For purposes of subsection (a), the term "multiple employer welfare arrangement" has the meaning given such term by section 3(40) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this section.

(Added Pub. L. 104–191, title IV, §401(a), Aug. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 2079.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 3(40) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, referred to in subsec. (b), is classified to section 1002(40) of Title 29, Labor.

The date of the enactment of this section, referred to in subsec. (b), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 104–191, which was approved Aug. 21, 1996.

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to plan years beginning after June 30, 1997, see section 401(c) of Pub. L. 104–191, set out as a note under section 9801 of this title.
#### Elizabeth C. Stonborough v. Preferred Accident Insurance Company of New York.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
§ 9269.3-3 Minerals management. ( a ) *Oil and gas leasing.* [Reserved]
( b ) *Geothermal resources leasing.* [Reserved]
( c ) *Outer continental shelf leasing.* [Reserved]
( d ) *Coal management* — ( 1 ) *Trespass.* Mining operations conducted prior to the effective date of a lease shall constitute an act of trespass and be subject to penalties specified in § 9239.5 of this title.
( 2 ) *Penalty for unauthorized exploration for coal.* ( i ) Any person who willfully conducts coal exploration for commercial purposes without an exploration license issued under subpart 3410 of this title shall be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 for each day of violation.
( ii ) All data collected by said person on any Federal lands as a result of such violations shall immediately be made available to the Secretary, who shall make the data available to the public as soon as possible.
( iii ) No penalty under this section may be assessed unless such person is given notice and opportunity for a hearing with respect to such violation pursuant to part 4 of this title.
( e ) *Minerals other than oil, gas and coal.* [Reserved]
( f ) *Minerals materials disposal.* [Reserved]
( g ) *Multiple use mining.* [Reserved]
( h ) *Mining claims under the general mining laws.* [Reserved]
----

----

|                                               |                         |
|-----------------------------------------------|------------------------------|
| NOORDENDIJK 189                               |
| POSTBUS 574                                   |
| 3300 AN DORDRECHT                        |
|                                          |
| T. (078) 648 15 55                            |
| P. (078) 648 15 59                       |
|                                          |                         |
| To the board of directors and shareholders of |                         |
| Magic Benelux B.V.                            | INFO@VERSTEGENACCOUNTANTS.NL |
| Pelmolen 17                                   | WWW.VERSTEGENACCOUNTANTS.NL  |
| 3994 XX HOUTEN                                |                         |

|                              |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
| Drs. L.K. Hoogendoorn RA MGA |   |

----

----
#### § 208.45 Advance of funds.

At the time of Activation of a Task Force, the Task Force will develop the documentation necessary to request an advance of funds be paid to such Task Force's Sponsoring Agency. Upon approval, DHS will submit the documentation to the Assistance Officer and will request an advance of funds up to 75 percent of the estimated personnel costs for the Activation. The estimated personnel costs will include the salaries, benefits, and Backfill costs for Task Force Members and an estimate of the salaries, benefits and Backfill costs required for equipment cache rehabilitation. The advance of funds will not include any costs for equipment purchase.
No. 13,197. No. 13,198.

#### Cole et al. *v.*Woodruff. Cole et al. *v.*Gwartney.

(16 P. [2d] 1119)

Decided November 21, 1932.

Mr. William T. Burris, for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. George M. Coblett, Mr. Claude W. Corlett, Mr. M. T. Hancock, for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed en banc on application for supersedeas without written opinion.
EPA R eg . N o

. 69361

- 29
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Metropolitan Jockey Club, Respondent, against William W. Mills et al, as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Appellants. (1945-46.) The People of *972the State of New York ex rel. Metropolitan Jockey Club, Respondent, against Harry B. Chambers et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Appellants. (1946-47.)

—Final order in consolidated tax certiorari proceedings unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, A del, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site.(Historical purposes)
**Title:****Annual report FY...**
 
2003 | 2004 | 2005
 
SuDoc:ID 1.27:SU 2/
Item Number:0900-I-18 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000637696
 
October 23, 2017
#### § 63.9 Sale while claim pending.

If a claimant sells a structure prior to its demolition or relocation, no benefits are payable to that claimant under section 1306(c) of the Act, and any payments which may have been made under those provisions shall be reimbursed to the insurer making them.
§ 67.10 Rates during pendency of final determination. ( a ) Until such time as a final determination is made and proper notice is given, no person within a participating community shall be denied the right to purchase flood insurance at the subsidized rate.
( b ) After the final determination and upon the effective date of a FIRM, risk premium rates will be charged for new construction and substantial improvements. The effective date of a FIRM shall begin not later than six months after the final flood elevation determination.
### §9036. Certification by Commission

#### (a) Initial certifications

Not later than 10 days after a candidate establishes his eligibility under section 9033 to receive payments under section 9037, the Commission shall certify to the Secretary for payment to such candidate under section 9037 payment in full of amounts to which such candidate is entitled under section 9034. The Commission shall make such additional certifications as may be necessary to permit candidates to receive payments for contributions under section 9037.

#### (b) Finality of determinations

Initial certifications by the Commission under subsection (a), and all determinations made by it under this chapter, are final and conclusive, except to the extent that they are subject to examination and audit by the Commission under section 9038 and judicial review under section 9041.

(Added Pub. L. 93–443, title IV, §408(c), Oct. 15, 1974, 88 Stat. 1300.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable with respect to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1974, see section 410(c)(1) of Pub. L. 93–443, set out as an Effective Date of 1974 Amendment note under section 30101 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Shoe Carnival, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending August
2, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Mark L. Lemond, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations of the
  Company.

|Date: | September 11,
      2008 | By:/s/ Mark L.
      Lemond | 
|----- | ------------------------ | --------------------------- | 
|      |                          | Mark L. Lemond              | 
|      |                          | President and               | 
|      |                          | Chief Executive Officer     | 

---
Lost Link Procedures

If the DJI Inspire 1 loses communication with the ground control station (GCS) 

the UAS will stop and hover at 100 feet, for a period no longer than two minutes, 

after which the UAS will fly a pre-determined flight plan at 100 ft programed by 

the pilot to ensure a safe return to the home location.

During this time the pilot is to verify power, and connections on the GCS in an

attempt to re-establish a link with the UAS. 

For our operations, Onslow County PIC’s will primarily use the return to home 

unless in an open area where safety of flight would dictate immediate landing.

In the case of a lost link from PIC and UAS, local ATC will be notified the last 

know height, location, and direction of the UAS. PIC will send, via email, the 

flight log for that flight from the UAS control system to the local ATC.