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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-22646-KMW

DOUG LONGHINI, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SUNSHINE DADE INVESTMENTS LLC, and

DADELAND SERVICE STATIONS, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________________/

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, and Defendant, SUNSHINE DADE INVESTMENTS LLC, 

and DADELAND SERVICE STATIONS, INC., having entered into a Settlement Agreement and 

Release that resolves all claims that were or could have been brought in this action, hereby stipulate 

to the dismissal of this matter with prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, 

and expenses. The parties request that the Court enter an Order of Dismissal. 

Dated: December 15, 2020.

/s/ Anthony J. Perez 

ANTHONY J. PEREZ

Florida Bar No.: 535451

GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.

4937 S.W. 74th Court, Unit #3

Miami, FL 33155

Telephone: (305) 553- 3464

Facsimile: (305)553-3031

Primary Email: ajperez@lawgmp.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

/s/ Edward S. Polk

EDWARD S. POLK

Florida Bar No.: 239860

MARC RAPAPORT

Florida Bar No.: 1008359

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.

Cole, Scott & Kissane Building

9150 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 

1400 P.O. Box 569015

Miami, Florida 33256

Telephone: (305) 350-5338

Email: edward.polk@scsklegal.com;

Marc.rapaport@csklegal.com

Attorneys for Defendant, Sunshine Dade 

Investments, LLC

Case 1:20-cv-22646-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/16/2020 Page 1 of 2
/823720/4#39100182 v1

/s/ Mendy Halberstam 

MENDY HALBERSTAM

Florida Bar No.: 68999

JACKSON LEWIS P.C.

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500

Two South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, FL 33131

Telephone: (305) 577-7600

Facsimile: (305) 373-4466

Primary Email: mendy.halberstam@jacksonlewis.com

Attorney for Defendant, Dadeland Service Stations, Inc

Case 1:20-cv-22646-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/16/2020 Page 2 of 2
|  |
|--|

|  |  |
|--|--|

| ** ** |
|------------|

|   | ****Alcoholics Anonymous**** 
This is the investigative file concerning the May 19, 1978, placing of an explosive devise at the front door of the Alcoholics Anonymous Faith Club, Lubbock, TX at approximately 1:10 a.m. No injuries were reported and the damage was nominal. A bingo club was operated on the premises. No suspects were developed, therefore, no prosecution in the case.

**Part 1**

Introduction
Reading Room Index - A   B   C   D   E    F   G- H   I    J    K   L   M   N   -O   P   Q   R   S   T   U-V   W   X   Y   Z   
Electronic Reading Room
- Alphabetical Listing- Espionage-Famous Persons-Gangster Era- Historical Interest- Unusual Phenomena-Violent CrimeFBI              File Fact Sheet FOIA Request Instructions- FOIA Request Form - Privacy Waiver and Certificate of Identity Form Privacy Act Instructions- Privacy Act Request FormDOJ              Reference GuideU.S.              DOJ FOIASearch
All of these publications are in PDF (Portable Document Format). To view them you will need to have the Adobe Acrobat Reader plug-in installed on your computer. The Reader can be downloaded at no cost from Adobe's site on the World Wide Web.   If you have difficulty accessing any material on this site because of a disability, please contact us in writing or via telephone and we will work with you to make the information available.

Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Section    202-324-5520 |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 10.9

                         AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AMENDED AND
                          RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the 9th day of December, 2002 (the
"Amendment") by and between BUCA, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (the "Company"),
and Joseph P. Micatrotto (the "Employee").

         WHEREAS, the Company and Employee entered into an Amended and Restated
Employment Agreement dated as of February 17, 1999 (as amended to the date
hereof, the "Employment Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the Company and Employee desire to make certain modifications
to the Employment Agreement.

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the terms and
conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:

         1.    Section 3 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by
replacing the date "December 31, 2003" in the first sentence with the date
"December 31, 2004."

         2.    Section 9(g) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by
replacing the term "Change of Control" in the fourth paragraph of such Section
with the term "Change in Control."

         3.    Section 10 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by
replacing (i) the phase "eighteen (18) month's base salary" in the third
paragraph of such Section with the phase "two (2) year's base salary" and (ii)
the phase "eighteen (18) equal installments" in the third paragraph of such
Section with the term "twenty-four (24) equal installments."

         4.    Except as is explicitly inconsistent, modified, supplemented or
amended by the express terms hereof, the Employment Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect.

         5.    This Amendment No. 2 to the Employment Agreement shall be
governed by, and construed in accordance with, the internal laws of the State of
Minnesota.

         6.    This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original, but each of which together shall constitute one and
the same instrument.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the
day and year first above written.

                                    BUCA, INC.

                                    By: /s/ Greg A. Gadel
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Its:  Executive Vice President,
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Chief Financial Officer, Secretary
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              and Treasurer
                                              -------------

                                    /s/ Joseph P. Micatrotto
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Joseph P. Micatrotto
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-98-41 July 2, 1998

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF TO HOLD PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE

ON POSSIBLE OPERATOR EXAMINATION VIOLATION AT DRESDEN PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet on July 7

for a predecisional enforcement conference with Commonwealth

Edison Co. on an apparent violation associated with the

compromise of an NRC reactor operation examination at the Dresden

Nuclear Power Station. The plant is located near Morris,

Illinois.

The meeting, which is open to public observation, will be at

1 p.m. in the Third Floor Conference Room, NRC Region III Office,

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois. NRC staff members will be

available at the close of the meeting for questions and comments

from members of the public.

On July 1, 1996, the utility notified the NRC that the

operator license examination, due to be administered by the NRC

staff on July 8, appeared to have been compromised.

An investigation by the NRC's Office of Investigations

determined that two applicants for NRC operator licenses were

responsible for compromising the examination. Both individuals

were subsequently prosecuted for criminal charges associated with

the examination compromise. The charges were filed in January of

this year, and the individuals pleaded guilty to those charges.

Based on the results of that investigation, the NRC staff

identified an apparent programmatic problem with the utility's

overall security of materials related to the examination. This

finding is being considered for possible enforcement action.

The purpose of the predecisional enforcement conference is

to discuss the apparent violation and provide the company an

opportunity to respond and to provide details of its corrective

actions and other additional information.

The information presented in the predecisional enforcement

conference will be considered in determining the appropriate

enforcement action. The enforcement action will not be

determined at the meeting; a decision on the enforcement action,
if any, is usually issued several weeks after the conference.

#####
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsThe effect of impurity gasses on variable polarity plasma arc welded 2219 aluminumVariable polarity plasma arc (VPPA) welding has been used with considerable success by NASA for the welds on the Space Shuttle External Tank as well as by others concerned with high quality welded structures. The effects of gaseous contaminants on the appearance of VPPA welds on 2219 aluminum are examined so that a welder can recognize that such contamination is present and take corrective measures. There are many possible sources of such contamination including, contaminated gas bottles, leaks in the gas plumbing, inadequate shield gas flow, condensed moisture in the gas lines or torch body, or excessive contaminants on the workpiece. The gasses chosen for study in the program were nitrogen, oxygen, methane, and hydrogen. Welds were made in a carefully controlled environment and comparisons were made between welds with various levels of these contaminants and welds made with research purity (99.9999 percent) gasses. Photographs of the weld front and backside as well as polished and etched cross sections are presented.Document ID19900017619Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsMcclure, John C.*(Texas Univ. El Paso, TX, United States)*Torres, Martin R.*(Texas Univ. El Paso, TX, United States)*Gurevitch, Alan C.*(Texas Univ. El Paso, TX, United States)*Newman, Robert A.*(Texas Univ. El Paso, TX, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateAugust 31, 1989Subject CategoryMetallic MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-183803NAS 1.26:183803Accession Number90N26935Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS8-37425Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900017619.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
#### § 2524.7 Disposal of lands in excess of 160 acres.

Desert-land entrymen within exterior boundaries of a reclamation project who expect to secure water from the Government must relinquish or assign all of the lands embraced in their entries in excess of one farm unit in not less than 2 years after notice through the land office, must reclaim one-half of the irrigable area covered by their water right in the same manner as private owners of land irrigated under a reclamation project, and also comply with the regulations of the Department applicable to the remainder of the irrigable land of the project.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Shawna Morgan Rector, 

 

 Appellant,

v.

Mitchell Rector,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No.08-21-00173-CV

Appeal from the

County Court

of Winkler County, Texas 

(TC# 2012-2350)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellee’s third motion for extension of time within which to file 

the brief until September 2, 2022. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE THE APPELLEE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. James Huggler, the Appellee’s attorney, prepare the 

Appellee’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before September 2, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 4

th day of August, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsMSFC exhaust effluent diffusion predictions and measurements for STS-1, STS-2, STS-3, and STS-4The results of air quality predictions and measurements made during the launches of the Space Shuttle are presented. The atmospheric conditions, the use of the REED code, and the resulting predictions and measurements are discussed.Document ID19840003525Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsTurner, R. E.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1983Subject CategoryEnvironment PollutionReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:82551NASA-TM-82551Accession Number84N11593Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840003525.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
#### § 19.22 Withdrawal of metal refined in part from imported crude metal and in part from crude metal produced from imported materials.

Upon withdrawal for exportation of metal from a bonded warehouse engaged in refining, or smelting and refining, part of which metal was obtained from imported crude metal and part from crude metal produced by smelting imported materials, the warehouse account shall be credited with the quantity of metal so withdrawn, plus (a) the refining wastage allowance prescribed for that establishment, and (b) the smelting wastage allowance prescribed for the establishment in which the imported materials were smelted, and (c) any dutiable metals shown on the warehouse entry or the rewarehouse entry filed at the first-mentioned warehouse which have been lost and are attributable to the exported product. However, upon withdrawal of such refined metal for consumption, no allowance shall be made for wastage except where the withdrawal is made from a bonded Customs warehouse other than a bonded smelting and refining warehouse.
### §441b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 441b was editorially reclassified as section 30118 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:20-CV-23116-ROSENBERG/REINHART

GARDEN APARTMENTS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHUBB CUSTOM INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

 __ /

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. DE 

49. The Court previously referred these Motions to the Honorable Bruce E. Reinhart for a Report 

and Recommendation. DE 55.

Judge Reinhart issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), in which he recommended 

that Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ fees be granted, and that Defendant be awarded attorneys’ 

fees of $34,460.00. DE 56. Plaintiff timely filed Objections to the R&R, DE 57, and Defendant 

filed a Response to those objections, DE 58. The Court has reviewed the Report and 

Recommendations, the Plaintiff’s Objections, and the record and is otherwise fully advised in the 

premises. The Court agrees with Judge Reinhart’s analysis and finds Judge Reinhart’s conclusions 

and recommendations to be well reasoned and correct. 

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:

1. Magistrate Judge Reinhart’s Report and Recommendation on the Motion for 

Attorneys’ Fees [DE 56] is ADOPTED as the Order of the Court.

Case 1:20-cv-23116-RLR Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2022 Page 1 of 2
2

2. Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation [DE 57] are 

OVERRULED.

3. Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees [DE 49] is GRANTED. Defendant is

awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $34,460.00.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, West Palm Beach, Florida, this 1st day of February, 

2022.

_______________________________ 

ROBIN L. ROSENBERG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-23116-RLR Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2022 Page 2 of 2
(LOGO)NORWEST MORTGAGE                            Norwest Mortgage, Inc.
                                                  405 S.W. 5th Street
                                                  Des Moines, IA 50309-4626
                                                  515/237-6000


                              Management Assertion

As of and for the year ended December 3l, 1997,   Norwest  Mortgage  Banking has
complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing standards set forth
in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of America's  Uniform  Single  Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers.  As of this same period,  Norwest Mortgage Banking
had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and  omissions  policy in the amount of
$100 million and $20 million, respectively.


/s/Mark C. Oman                                                 January 14,1998
Mark C. Oman                                                    Date
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

/s/Robert K. Chapman                                            January 14, 1998
Robert K. Chapman                                               Date
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICE

/s/Mike Heid                                                    January 14, 1998
Mike Heid                                                       Date
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT LOAN SERVICING
#### Huguenot Trust Company v. Robert D. Ireland, Impleaded, etc.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied, with ten dollars costs. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
<PAGE>
                       [OMNI ENERGY SERVICES CORP. LOGO]

                                   PO BOX 3761
                               LAFAYETTE, LA 70502
                     OFFICE: 337-896-6664 FAX: 337-896-6655

EXHIBIT 99.1


                                 March 29, 2002


Office of the Chief Accountant
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

     RE:      ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP REPRESENTATIONS

Dear Madam or Sir:

         In connection with Arthur Andersen LLP's audit of the financial
statements of Omni Energy Services Corp. (the "Company") for the year ended
December 31, 2001, Arthur Andersen LLP has made the following representations to
the Company in a letter dated March 29, 2002:

            1. The audit was subject to Arthur Andersen LLP's quality control
system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable
assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with professional
standards;

            2. There was appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen LLP personnel
working on the audit;

            3. Consultation with the national office of Arthur Andersen LLP
regarding the audit was available; and

            4. Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Arthur
Andersen was not relevant to this audit.


                                               Very truly yours,

                                               /s/ G. Darcy Klug
                                               ------------------------------
                                               G. Darcy Klug
                                               Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RICHARD A. BRYANT,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 496 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of April, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### § 143.0 Scope.

This part sets forth the requirements and procedures for participation in the Automated Broker Interface (ABI), for the clearance of imported merchandise under appraisement and informal entries, and under electronic entry filing and under Remote Location Filing (RLF). All requirements and procedures set forth in this part are in addition to the general requirements and procedures for all entries set forth in part 141 of this chapter. More specific requirements and procedures are set forth elsewhere in this chapter; for example, part 145 concerns importations by mail and part 10 concerns merchandise conditionally free of duty or subject to a reduced rate.

[CBP Dec. 09-47, 74 FR 69020, Dec. 30, 2009]
#### § 127.601 May a protest challenging the size and status of a concern as an EDWOSB or WOSB be filed together?

An interested party seeking to protest both the size and the EDWOSB or WOSB status of an apparent successful offeror on an EDWOSB or WOSB requirement must file two separate protests, one size protest pursuant to part 121 of this chapter and one EDWOSB or WOSB status protest pursuant to this subpart. An interested party seeking to protest only the size of an apparent successful EDWOSB or WOSB offeror must file a size protest to the contracting officer pursuant to part 121 of this chapter.
#### Harold Young, Respondent, v. Edelbrew Brewery, Inc., Appellant.

The findings of fact implicit in the verdict of the jury, as amended by stipulation, are disaffirmed. There is no evidence that the defendant’s servant, who received a threatening note and turned it over to the police, was acting within the general scope of his employment, while engaged in his employer’s business, with a view to the furtherance of the interests of his employer. The evidence is conclusive that he was acting for himself, in his own interests and for his own protection. Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.