alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-48 May 22, 1997

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC TO HOLD A CONFERENCE WITH COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

ON AN APPARENT DISCRIMINATION VIOLATION AT BRAIDWOOD PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet May 29

with representatives of Commonwealth Edison Company for a

predecisional enforcement conference on an apparent employment

discrimination violation at the Braidwood plant near Joliet,

Illinois.

The meeting will start at 10:00 a.m. in the Third Floor

Conference Room of the NRC Region III Office, 801 Warrenville

Road, Lisle, Illinois. It will be open to public observation.

Discussion will focus on an NRC investigation that concluded

that the utility was involved in a 1994 incident in which

discrimination occurred. NRC investigators found that two

supervisors of the utility's security contractor, Burns Security

Services, were threatened by Burns with being fired and losing

their access authorization to the Braidwood plant because they

discussed security concerns with NRC inspectors.

NRC regulations prohibit an NRC licensee from discriminating

against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities,

including raising safety issues. NRC holds its licensees

responsible for ensuring that contractors working at its

facilities comply with NRC requirements.

The decision to hold an enforcement conference does not mean

the NRC has determined that a discrimination violation did occur

or that enforcement action will be taken. Rather, the purpose is

to discuss apparent violations, their causes and safety

significance; to provide the licensee an opportunity to point out

any errors that may have been made in the NRC determination that

an apparent violation occurred; and to enable the company to

outline its proposed corrective actions.

No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated

enforcement action, such as a fine, will be made at this

conference. Those decisions will be made by senior NRC officials

at a later date.

####
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case No. 1:20-cv-23391

ADT LLC; and The ADT Security

Corporation,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Vivint Smart Home, Inc. f/k/a Mosaic

Acquisition Corp.; and Legacy Vivint Smart

Home, Inc. f/k/a Vivint Smart Home, Inc.

Defendant.

_______________________________________

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Olga M. Vieira, Esq. of the law firm Quinn Emanuel

Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP hereby enters her appearance as counsel on behalf of Defendants Vivint

Smart Home, Inc. f/k/a Mosaic Acquisition Corp. and Legacy Vivint Smart Home, Inc. f/k/a Vivint

Smart Home, Inc. in the above-captioned action and hereby requests that copies of all further

correspondence, notices, filings and pleadings be served upon the undersigned.

I certify that I am admitted to practice in the Southern District of Florida.

Dated: March 28, 2023

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART

& SULLIVAN, LLP

By: /s/ Olga M. Vieira

Olga M. Vieira

Florida Bar No. 29783

olgavieira@quinnemanuel.com

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART

& SULLIVAN, LLP

2601 South Bayshore Drive, 15th Floor

Miami, FL 33133

(305) 496-2988

Case 1:20-cv-23391-JG Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/28/2023 Page 1 of 2
Counsel for Defendants Vivint Smart

Home, Inc. f/k/a Mosaic Acquisition

Corp. and Legacy Vivint Smart Home,

Inc. f/k/a Vivint Smart Home, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 28th day of March, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing

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

served this day on all counsel of record 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

who are not authorized to receive Notice of Electronic Filing.

By: /s/ Olga M. Vieira

 Olga M. Vieira

 Fla. Bar No. 29783

Case 1:20-cv-23391-JG Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/28/2023 Page 2 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Southern District of Florida

WINDY LUCIUS

20cv23237

SUGARING USA LLC d/b/a SUGARING NYC

SUGARING USA LLC d/b/a SUGARING NYC 

c/o Registered Agent 

1 WEST STREET 

# 2441 

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10004

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq. 

J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC 

8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201 

Miami, FL 33156 

T: 305-351-2014 

cc@cunninghampllc.com Aug 4, 2020 s/ Mary Etienne

Case 1:20-cv-23237-UU Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 1 of 1
### §6507. Insurance of office funds of Secretary of Senate and Sergeant at Arms; payment of premiums

The Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms on and after June 27, 1956, are authorized and directed to protect the funds of their respective offices by purchasing insurance in an amount necessary to protect said funds against loss. Premiums on such insurance shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate, upon vouchers approved by the chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration.

(June 27, 1956, ch. 453, 70 Stat. 360.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 65a of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Section is from the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1957, act June 27, 1956.

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in the following prior appropriation acts:

Aug. 5, 1955, ch. 568, 69 Stat. 504.

July 2, 1954, ch. 455, title I, 68 Stat. 400.

Aug. 1, 1953, ch. 304, title I, 67 Stat. 321.

July 9, 1952, ch. 598, 66 Stat. 467.

Oct. 11, 1951, ch. 485, 65 Stat. 392.

Sept. 6, 1950, ch. 896, Ch. II, 64 Stat. 597.

June 22, 1949, ch. 235, 63 Stat. 219.

June 14, 1948, ch. 467, 62 Stat. 425.
August 25, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

VILLAGE CRESTMONT HOUSTON USA, LLC AND WEST CRESTMONT 

HOUSTON USA, LLC, Appellants

NO. 14-16-00264-CV V.

HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND HARRIS COUNTY 

APPRAISAL REVIEW BOARD, Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellants’ motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on March 8, 2016. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellants, Village Crestmont Houston USA, LLC and West Crestmont Houston 

USA, LLC.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### Imperial Steel Cabinet Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Edgar M. Snow and Robert C. Butzow, Trading as Edgar M. Snow & Company, Defendants in Error.

Gen. No. 17,756.

Action in *assumpsit*for goods sold, finding affirmed without de- ■ tailing evidence.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Isidoee H. Himes, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed January 23, 1913.

Michael Koch, for plaintiff in error.

Kraus, Alschuler & Holden, for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

Defendants in error, Snow & Co., hereinafter called defendant, purchased some vault cases and paid the agreed price to one Julin; plaintiff in error, the Imperial Steel Cabinet Co., claims that the defendant should have paid it instead of Julin, and it brought suit against the defendant for the price of the case. Upon the trial the court held that plaintiff was not entitled to collect anything from the defendant, and in this court it is urged that this finding is wrong.

We shall not undertake to narrate any of the testimony presented at the trial. To do so would unduly extend this opinion and give the parties in the ease no *634more information as to the facts than they now have. It is sufficient to say that after careful consideration we are of the opinion that the trial court was justified in concluding that Julin was not an agent for plaintiff but was an independent contractor; that defendant’s agreement for the purchase of the cases was with Julin and not with plaintiff, and that the payment made by defendant was made to the party entitled to receive it, and therefore defendant owes plaintiff nothing on account of this transaction.

We have examined the errors alleged to have been committed by the court, and are of the opinion that nothing requiring that this ease should be reversed appeared in the record. Therefore the judgment will be affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

CONTACT: Mark Hammond Nov. 8, 1996

Office: (510) 975-0254 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Home: (415) 674-1024 RIV-5996

Pager: (800) 916-4952

NRC, SUPPLY SYSTEM OFFICIALS TO DISCUSS

PERFORMANCE AT WNP-2

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet next week with

officials of the Washington Public Power Supply System to discuss

efforts towards improved performance at the Washington Nuclear

Project-2 (WNP-2) outside Richland, Wash.

The meeting will be at 1 p.m. on Nov. 14 at the NRC Region

IV office in Arlington, Texas. It will be open to the public for

observation; NRC officials will be available after the meeting

for questions.

The session is one in a series between Supply System

officials and a special NRC oversight panel created in September

1995 by L. Joe Callan, the NRC Regional Administrator, to monitor

and assess the Supply System's efforts to improve performance at

WNP-2.

#
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DARREN L. CORBETT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D23-2447

April 10, 2024

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Manatee County; Stephen Mathew Whyte, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, ATKINSON, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. 

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
|                             |                                                                                                                       |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1)     | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |

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

|                               |                           |                                                              |        |  |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--|
| Date: February 10, 2011  | /s/ Paul Soth   |                                                         |
|                          | Name:           | Paul Soth                                               |   |
|                          | Title:          | Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President  |   |
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA2ot</ -1/M- 2.?,5-A-S> Directorate Identifier: -AD 

{(V0/1 make chmzges to the \'1.1//leS ill the ta!J/e hdow. )'OU 111//St ens/Ire the totals upJute UCCOrJingfy {{ 

1/zey do not, click (or Tuh) illto wul then out of/he changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

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

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

replacement) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost 

Do not include on- (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet 

condition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Incorporate AFM 

TRinAFM 

1.0 $0 91 Emergency 

Procedure 

I o I 

The known number of products in compliance: 0 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $7,735 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0 

On-Condition Costs: 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

$0 

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

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

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? · 

YES* D NO [2J 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? ~ 

YES* D NO [2J 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

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

either a Yes or No answer.~ 

YES D NO [2J 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

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

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

YES* D NO [2J 

*Explanation:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR SIX MOONTHS  ENDED  DECEMBER 31, 1998 INCLUDED IN THE
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              94,675
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      361,226
<ALLOWANCES>                                        25,105
<INVENTORY>                                         14,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   445,696
<PP&E>                                             180,577
<DEPRECIATION>                                      34,206
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     649,018
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,296,586
<BONDS>                                          1,626,518
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             2,246
<OTHER-SE>                                      (2,276,332)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       649,018
<SALES>                                             42,726
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,076,268
<CGS>                                               21,495
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      450,604
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,904,996
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    53,953
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 136,068
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,474,752)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,474,752)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,474,752)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.17) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.17)
        


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of October 18, 2004: 

A Closed Meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 at 10 a.m. 

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present. 

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (8), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), (8), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting. 

Commissioner Glassman, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session. 

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 19, 2004 will be: 

Formal orders of investigations; 

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; 

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; 

Regulatory matters regarding financial institutions; and 

Amici consideration. 

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: 

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070. 

Dated: October 12, 2004. 

Jonathan G. Katz, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 04-23199 Filed 10-12-04; 4:09 pm] 

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
#### § 143.24 Preparation of Customs Form 7501 and Customs Form 368 or 368A (serially numbered).

Customs Form 7501, or its electronic equivalent, may be prepared by importers or their agents or by Customs officers when it can be presented to a Customs cashier for payment of duties and taxes and for numbering of the entry before the merchandise is examined by a Customs officer. Where there is no Customs cashier, Customs Form 368 or 368A (serially numbered) or Customs Form 7501 must be used, and it shall be prepared by a Customs officer unless the form can be prepared under his control by the importer or agent for immediate use in clearing merchandise under the informal entry procedure. The conditions for the preparation of Customs Form 7501 by importers or their agents, as described in the first sentence of this section, do not apply to the acceptance of these entries for shipments not exceeding $250 in value released under a special permit for immediate delivery in accordance with part 142 of this chapter.

[T.D. 84-129, 49 FR 23168, June 5, 1984, as amended by T.D. 87-75, 52 FR 26142, July 13, 1987; T.D. 89-82, 54 FR 36026, Aug. 31, 1989; T.D. 92-56, 57 FR 24944, June 12, 1992; CBP Dec. 15-14, 80 FR 61289, Oct. 13, 2015]
#### § 148.0 Scope.

This part contains the regulations governing the allowance of exemptions for residents and nonresidents arriving in the United States, for crewmembers of carriers engaged in international traffic, for military and civilian employees of the United States, for certain evacuees, and for certain personnel of foreign governments and international organizations. Procedures and requirements are also set forth pertaining to registration of articles to be taken abroad, declaration and entry, and examination of baggage, and collection of duties and taxes.
#### Ephraim Benjamin and Others v. Daniel J. Brownstein and Others.

Application denied, with ten dollars costs. Order signed. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
### §46b–1. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 46b–1 was editorially reclassified as section 5534 of this title.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 203 (Thursday, October 21, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61873]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23528]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Water Quality Association

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 15, 2004, pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Water Quality Association 
(``WQA'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the 
name and principal place of business of the standards development 
organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development 
activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: Water Quality 
Association, Lisle, IL. The nature and scope of WQA's standards 
development activities are: planning, developing, establishing and 
coordinating voluntary harmonized consensus standards in the water 
treatment industry, either itself or through cooperative standards 
making activities with other not for profit standards development 
organizations.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-23528 Filed 10-20-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M