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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23287-DPG 

LUIS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAW FIRM NAME AND E-MAIL ADDRESSES 

TO THE CLERK: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the firm of BROAD AND CASSEL 

LLP, has combined with the firm of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, and will be doing 

business in Florida as NELSON MULLINS BROAD AND CASSEL. Counsel’s e-mail addresses 

have changed accordingly. The new contact information is as follows: 

Jonathan Etra, Esq. 

Nelson Mullins Broad and Cassel 

jonathan.etra@nelsonmullins.com

yusimy.bordes@nelsonmullins.com 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 126 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2021 Page 1 of 2
2 

Respectfully submitted, 

NELSON MULLINS BROAD AND CASSEL

/s/ Jonathan Etra 

Jonathan Etra, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 068905 

2 S. Biscayne Blvd. 

One Biscayne Tower, 21st Floor 

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: 305.373.9400 

Counsel for Defendant 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by email via the 

CM/ECF on this 3rd day of September 2021 upon all counsel and parties of record. 

/s/ Jonathan Etra 

Jonathan Etra

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 126 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2021 Page 2 of 2
#### Jennie Frank, Respondent, *v.*Belnord Realty Company, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the Hew-York county clerk’s office on the Sth day of December, 1913, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered on the 9th day of December, 1913, denying a motion for a new trial.

Per Curiam:

We think there was no evidence to justify the submission of the question of the defendant’s negligence to the jury. The judgment and order appealed from are, therefore, reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ. Judgment and order reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. Order to be settled on notice.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

CAMILLE ADAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-36008

D.C. Nos. 1:16-cv-00083-SPW

1:08-cr-00014-SPW-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 9, 2021** 

Seattle, Washington

Before: McKEOWN and BADE, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,

*** District Judge.

FILED

MAR 15 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
Federal prisoner Camille Adams (“Adams”) appeals the denial of his motion

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

convictions and sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. 

We review de novo the denial of a § 2255 motion, United States v. Aguirre-Ganceda,

592 F.3d 1043, 1045 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

Adams’s contention that aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime

of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) is foreclosed by our precedent. See Young

v. United States, 22 F.4th 1115, 1122!23 (9th Cir. 2022) (explaining that there is “no

distinction between aiding-and-abetting liability and liability as a principal under

federal law[,]” and holding that “aiding and abetting a crime of violence, such as

armed bank robbery, is also a crime of violence”). Because Hobbs Act robbery is a

crime of violence, see United States v. Dominguez, 954 F.3d 1251, 1260!61 (9th Cir.

2020), and aiding and abetting a crime of violence is also a crime of violence, see

Young, 22 F.4th at 1122!23, we affirm the district court’s denial of Adams’s § 2255

motion. 

AFFIRMED.

- 2 -
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of VAALCO Energy, Inc. (the “**Company**”) onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “**Report**”), I, W. Russell Scheirman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

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

Dated: November 9, 2006
#### § 111.41 Endorsement of checks.

A broker must not endorse or accept, without authority of his client, any U.S. Government draft, check, or warrant drawn to the order of the client.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-25-2000
<CASH>                                         553,531
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  495,242
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    540,572
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,811,666
<PP&E>                                       9,706,834
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,777,685
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,182,268
<BONDS>                                      2,186,147
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          2
<COMMON>                                           160
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,614,051
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,777,685
<SALES>                                     20,871,005
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,167,095
<CGS>                                        5,948,282
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,948,282
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            15,038,616
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             180,657
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                158,437
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            152,837
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   152,837
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03


</TABLE>
§ 429.34 Who is the decisionmaker for Reclamation's final determinations? ( a ) The appropriate Regional Director, or the Regional Director's designee, makes any final determination associated with an action taken under this rule and will send that final determination in writing to you by mail.
( b ) The Regional Director's final determination will take effect upon the date of the final determination letter.
### §31–1. Repealed. Pub. L. 102–90, title I, §6(c), Aug. 14, 1991, 105 Stat. 451

Section, Pub. L. 98–63, title I, §908(a)–(c), July 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 337, 338; Pub. L. 99–190, §137, Dec. 19, 1985, 99 Stat. 1323; Pub. L. 101–194, title VI, §601(b)(2), title XI, §1101(b), Nov. 30, 1989, 103 Stat. 1762, 1782; Pub. L. 101–280, §7(b)(2)[(d)(2)], May 4, 1990, 104 Stat. 161, related to maximum amount of honoraria which could be accepted by Members of Congress.

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 102–90, title I, §6(f)(1), Aug. 14, 1991, 105 Stat. 451, provided that: "Except for the provisions of subsection (e)(1) [105 Stat. 451], the provisions of this section [see Tables for classification] shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [Aug. 14, 1991]."
### §1741. Definitions

As used in this chapter:

(1) The term "Librarian" means the Librarian of Congress.

(2) The term "Board" means the National Recording Preservation Board.

(3) The term "sound recording" has the meaning given such term in section 101 of title 17.

(4) The term "publication" has the meaning given such term in section 101 of title 17.

(5) The term "Registry version" means, with respect to a sound recording, the version of a recording first published or offered for mass distribution whether as a publication or a broadcast, or as complete a version as bona fide preservation and restoration activities by the Librarian, an archivist other than the Librarian, or the copyright legal owner can compile in those cases where the original material has been irretrievably lost or the recording is unpublished.

(Pub. L. 106–474, title I, §131, Nov. 9, 2000, 114 Stat. 2090.)
#### John Rambo, Respondent, v. Raymond A. Halsey, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for the destruction by a dog warden of two unlicensed dogs owned by plaintiff, before the expiration of the period of redemption provided for in section 114 of the Agriculture and Markets Law, defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency was denied. Order of the County Court, Suffolk County, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, with leave to defendant to answer within ten days from the entry of the order hereon.

No opinion. Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

801 Warrenville Road

Lisle IL 60532

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. III-00-25 May 26, 2000

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630)829-9663/e-mail: rjs2@nrc.gov

Pam Alloway-Mueller (630)829-9662/e-mail: pla@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF TO MEET JUNE 5 WITH AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER CO. OFFICIALS

TO DISCUSS STATUS OF RESTART ACTIVITIES AT D.C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with American Electric Power Company

officials Monday, June 5, to discuss the status of D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Station's preparations for

resuming operations.

The meeting, which is open to the public, will be held at 10 a.m. EDT in the plant's Training

Building. The plant is located at 7700 Red Arrow Highway between Bridgman and Stevensville,

Michigan.

NRC staff members have been meeting periodically with utility officials to discuss the status of

the plant's preparations for restart. Depending on the utility’s progress in preparing for restart,

additional public meetings between the NRC staff and the utility may be held before a final decision on

the readiness of the plant to resume operation.

The plant has two reactor units. Unit 2 is the lead unit for restart. Unit 1 is scheduled to

resume operations in the fall of this year.

Both units have been shut down since September 1997 after an NRC design inspection

questioned the capabilities of key plant emergency systems to meet their design requirements.

#####
Case 1:20-cv-23242-BB Document 150-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2021 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:20-cv-23242-BB Document 150-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2021 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:20-cv-23242-BB Document 150-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2021 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:20-cv-23242-BB Document 150-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2021 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:20-cv-23242-BB Document 150-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2021 Page 5 of 7
Case 1:20-cv-23242-BB Document 150-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2021 Page 6 of 7
Case 1:20-cv-23242-BB Document 150-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2021 Page 7 of 7
#### In the Matter of the Application of Arthur Von Briesen, etc., Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Mo opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
§ 113.55 Cancellation of export bonds. ( a ) *Manner of cancellation.* A bond to assure exportation as defined in § 101.1 of this chapter may be cancelled: ( 1 ) *Upon exportation.* Upon the listing of the merchandise on the outward manifest or outward bill of lading, the inspector's certificate of lading, the record of clearance of the vessel or of the departure of the vehicle, and the production of a foreign landing certificate if the certificate is required by the port director.
( 2 ) *Upon payment of liquidated damages.* Upon the payment of liquidated damages.
( b ) *Cancellation of bond charges of an international carrier.* The conditions of the bond of an international carrier may be considered as having been complied with upon the production of the applicable documents listed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( c ) *Foreign landing certificate.* A foreign landing certificate, when required, must be produced within six months from the date of exportation and must be signed by a revenue officer of the foreign country to which the merchandise is exported, unless it is shown that the country has no customs administration, in which case the certificate may be signed by the consignee or by the vessel's agent at the place of landing. Landing certificates are required in the following cases: ( 1 ) *Mandatory.* A landing certificate will be required in every case to establish the exportation of narcotic drugs or any equipment, stores (except such articles as are placed on board vessels or aircraft under the provisions of section 309 or 317, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1309, 1317)), or machinery for vessels.
( 2 ) *Optional with the port director.* A landing certificate may be required by the port director for merchandise exported from the United States, or residue cargo, when a certificate is deemed necessary for the protection of the revenue.
( 3 ) *Waiver.* Except as provided in § 4.88 of this chapter, in cases where landing certificates are required and they cannot be produced, an application for waiver thereof may be made to the Commissioner of CBP through the port director, accompanied by such proof of exportation and landing abroad as may be available.
[T.D. 84-213, 49 FR 41171, Oct. 19, 1984, as amended by CBP Dec. 15-15, 80 FR 70167, Nov. 13, 2015]
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

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

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 96-90 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Tuesday, June 25, 1996)

NRC STAFF IDENTIFIES NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

WARRANTING INCREASED REGULATORY ATTENTION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff advised the

Commission today that it has identified six nuclear power plants

that warrant increased NRC regulatory attention.

These plants were placed on the NRC watch list earlier this

month at a meeting during which senior NRC managers conducted

their semi-annual review of the performance of operating nuclear

power plants and fuel cycle facilities.

The plants are:

Units 2 and 3 at Commonwealth Edison Company's Dresden

nuclear power plant near Morris, Illinois, (first listed in June

1987, removed in December 1988, and added again in January 1992);

Unit 3 at the Indian Point nuclear power plant near

Buchanan, New York, owned by the Power Authority of the State of

New York (listed in June 1993); and

Units 1, 2 and 3 at Northeast Utilities Service Company's

Millstone nuclear power station at Waterford, Connecticut. The

Millstone units were first placed on the NRC's watch list in

January.

TVA's Browns Ferry Unit 3 has been removed from the list of

plants warranting heightened NRC scrutiny. The staff told the

Commission that the plant has demonstrated sustained improvement

since it resumed operations late last year. Browns Ferry 3 was

first identified as a watch list plant in April 1986 and required

NRC approval to restart. The NRC granted such approval last

November.

The staff also informed the Commission that Tennessee Valley

Authority's Browns Ferry Unit 1, which had been on the list since

April 1986, is no longer so listed because TVA has indefinitely

deferred a decision on its restart. But if TVA should

subsequently plan to resume operations, the plant would need NRC

authorization before restart. The Browns Ferry units are located

near Decatur, Alabama.

#
### §27. Change of place of meeting

Whenever Congress is about to convene, and from the prevalence of contagious sickness, or the existence of other circumstances, it would, in the opinion of the President, be hazardous to the lives or health of the members to meet at the seat of Government, the President is authorized, by proclamation, to convene Congress at such other place as he may judge proper.

(R.S. §34.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §34 derived from act Apr. 3, 1794, ch. 17, 1 Stat. 353.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 29, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-03-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-29-2000
<CASH>                                           3,358
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      631
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    123,791
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               130,275
<PP&E>                                          97,631
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,835
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 187,071
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,373
<BONDS>                                         45,749
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           134
<OTHER-SE>                                      94,043
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   187,071
<SALES>                                        191,016
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               191,016
<CGS>                                          135,432
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  135,432
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,348
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,557
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,380
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,177
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,177
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.40




</TABLE>
### §42a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 42a was editorially reclassified as section 6116 of this title.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 42a, acts July 1, 1941, ch. 268, 55 Stat. 450; June 26, 1944, ch. 277, title I, 58 Stat. 339; June 13, 1945, ch. 189, 59 Stat. 243; Oct. 11, 1951, ch. 485, 65 Stat. 391; July 2, 1954, ch. 455, title I, 68 Stat. 402; Aug. 5, 1955, ch. 568, 69 Stat. 503; June 27, 1956, ch. 453, 70 Stat. 359; July 31, 1958, Pub. L. 85–570, 72 Stat. 442; July 12, 1960, Pub. L. 86–628, 74 Stat. 449; Dec. 30, 1963, Pub. L. 88–248, 77 Stat. 805; July 27, 1965, Pub. L. 89–90, 79 Stat. 268; July 23, 1968, Pub. L. 90–417, 82 Stat. 400; Dec. 12, 1969, Pub. L. 91–145, 83 Stat. 342; July 9, 1971, Pub. L. 92–51, 85 Stat. 128; Oct. 31, 1972, Pub. L. 92–607, ch. V, §506(k)(1), formerly §506(h)(1), 86 Stat. 1508, redesignated §506(i)(1) by Pub. L. 95–391, title I, Sept. 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 773, redesignated §506(j)(1) by Pub. L. 96–304, title I, §101, July 8, 1980, 94 Stat. 889, and redesignated §506(k)(1) by Pub. L. 97–276, §101(e), Oct. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 1189, provided for an airmail and special-delivery postage allowance for President of the Senate, prior to repeal by section 127(a)(2) of Pub. L. 97–51.
### §2281. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this chapter.

(Pub. L. 110–437, title VI, §601, Oct. 20, 2008, 122 Stat. 4999.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 110–437, Oct. 20, 2008, 122 Stat. 4983, known as the Capitol Visitor Center Act of 2008, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2201 of this title and Tables.
AFS-11-097-E Jan 13 2011 Exemption No. 9835A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2002-13066

Colonel Deborah A. Richardson U.S. Army Aeronautical Services Agency Department of the Army 9325 Gunston Road, Suite N319 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5582

Dear Colonel Richardson:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 9835. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated December 7, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of the Department of the Army (A rmy) for an extension of Exemption No. 9835. That exemption from § 91.209(a)(1) and (2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the Army to permit operations at ni ght without the use of aircraft position lights.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the Army.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9835 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 9835 to March 31, 2013 unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 9835, as amended, remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 9835.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service