alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 40726 Summary Calendar

ASHLEY B. WOMACK,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. RUSTIN P. WRIGHT,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U S D C No. 4:18

- CV

- 567

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * Rustin Wright appeals the district court’s order remanding this case , originally a f amily law case, back to the state court for want of federal jurisdiction. For starters, we note that we lack jurisdi ction to address any of the grounds Wright raises save and except his argument that 28 U.S.C. § 1443 provides a ground for removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); Dunn v. Miller , 695 F.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47. 5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 26, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-40726 Document: 00515248754 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/26/2019No. 19

- 40726

2 App’x 799, 800 (5th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, we address only the § 1443

argume nts and dismiss the remainder for want of jurisdiction. As to § 1443, we concur with the district court’s analysis that this case does not meet the standards of that statute, which is grounded in racial equality. See Georgia v. Rachel , 384 U.S. 780 (1966) ; see also Dunn , 695 F. App’x at 800 (collecting cases). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s §
1443 determination for essentially the same reasons stated by the district

court. AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. Case: 19-40726 Document: 00515248754 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/26/2019
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2024-07-02T14:35:58-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
#### § 191.0 Scope.

This part sets forth general provisions applicable to drawback claims and specialized provisions applicable to specific types of drawback claims filed under 19 U.S.C. 1313, prior to the February 24, 2016, amendments to the U.S. drawback law. Drawback claims may not be filed under this part after February 23, 2019. For drawback claims filed under 19 U.S.C. 1313, as amended, see part 190. Additional drawback provisions relating to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) are contained in subpart E of part 181 of this chapter.

[USCBP-2018-0029, 83 FR 65064, Dec. 18, 2018]
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

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

No. 01-102 August 13, 2001

 NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE

 ELECTS CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commissionís Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) has

elected Dr. George M. Hornberger as Chairman and Dr. Raymond G. Wymer as Vice-Chairman.

Dr. Hornberger is presently the Ernest H. Ern Professor of Environmental Sciences at the

University of Virginia. His research includes work in catchment hydrology and hydro-chemistry, as

well as the transport of colloids in geological media. He received his Bachelor of Science and Master

of Science degrees in civil engineering from Drexel University in 1965 and 1967, respectively. In 1970,

Dr. Hornberger received a Ph.D. in hydrology from Stanford University.

Prior to his retirement in 1991, Dr. Wymer was Director, Chemical Technology Division, at the

Oak Ridge National Laboratory. His consulting experience includes the areas of radioactive waste

management, site remediation and nuclear non-proliferation. He received a Bachelor of Science degree

from Memphis State University, and his Master of Science and Ph.D degrees from Vanderbilt

University.

The ACNW is an advisory group established by the NRC in 1988 to provide the agency with

independent technical review and advice on management and disposal of nuclear waste. Members are

appointed part-time for four-year terms, and may serve for two consecutive terms. Dr. Hornberger was

appointed to the Committee in September 1996, and prior to being elected Chairman, he served as ViceChairman for the three previous years.

Other members of the ACNW are:

Dr. B. John Garrick , retired President and Chief Executive Officer of PLG Inc., an international

engineering, applied science and management consulting firm.

Mr. Milton Levenson, a former Vice President of Bechtel International and an internationally known

nuclear engineering consultant. 

###
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-79,596-01

EX PARTE CHRIS L. VASQUEZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2008-420,480-A IN THE 140TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM LUBBOCK COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of burglary of a

habitation and sentenced to forty-five years’ imprisonment. The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed

his conviction. Vasquez v. State, No. 07-10-00325-CR (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011, pet. ref’d).

Applicant contends, among other things, that appellate counsel rendered ineffective

assistance because he failed to challenge the validity of a restitution order on direct appeal. We

remanded this application to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial

court has determined that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance. We find that Applicant
2

is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the judgment of conviction in cause

number 2008-420,480 from the 140th District Court of Lubbock County. Applicant is ordered

returned to that time at which he may give a written notice of appeal so that he may then, with the

aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. Within ten days of the issuance of this opinion, the trial

court shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be

represented by counsel, the trial court shall immediately appoint an attorney to represent Applicant

on direct appeal. All time limits shall be calculated as if the sentence had been imposed on the date

on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosecute an

appeal, he must take affirmative steps to file a written notice of appeal in the trial court within 30

days after the mandate of this Court issues. Applicant’s remaining claims are dismissed. Ex parte

Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division. 

Delivered: October 30, 2013

Do not publish
<PAGE>
Exhibit 10.2    Amendment To The Eagle Broadband, Inc. 2002 Stock Incentive Plan


                              EAGLE BROADBAND, INC.
                            2002 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

                                    AMENDMENT



Article One, Section V, Paragraph A of the subject plan, as reads:

                                   ARTICLE ONE
                               GENERAL PROVISIONS

V. STOCK SUBJECT TO THE PLAN

         A.  The stock issuable under the Plan shall be shares of authorized but
             unissued or reacquired Common Stock, including shares repurchased
             by the Corporation on the open market. The number of shares of
             Common Stock initially reserved for issuance over the term of the
             Plan shall be 1,500,000 shares.

Is hereby amended to read as follows:

                                   ARTICLE ONE
                               GENERAL PROVISIONS

V. STOCK SUBJECT TO THE PLAN

         A.  The stock issuable under the Plan shall be shares of authorized but
             unissued or reacquired Common Stock, including shares repurchased
             by the Corporation on the open market. The number of shares of
             Common Stock initially reserved for issuance over the term of the
             Plan (1,500,000 shares) is increased by an additional 2,000,000
             shares, resulting in a total of 3,500,000 shares of Common Stock
             reserved for issuance over the term of the Plan.


                                    Attested to by the Secretary of Eagle
                                    Broadband, Inc., as adopted by the Board of
                                    Directors, effective as of the 7th day of
                                    January 2003 (the "Effective Date").


                                    /s/ Christopher W. Futer
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Christopher W. (Jim) Futer
                                    Corporate Secretary
### §77. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 77 was editorially reclassified as section 5601 of this title.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:20-CV-22603-GOODMAN [CONSENT CASE]

ERIC CHAVEZ, ET AL.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GRILL ENTERPRISES, LLC AND 

RUBEN SIERRA, 

Defendants.

_______________________/

[DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence:

1. That Grill Enterprises, LLC failed to pay Erik Chavez the 

minimum wages required by law:

Answer Yes or No _____________

Please answer the following Question.

2. That Grill Enterprises, LLC failed to pay Leonel Diaz the 

minimum wages required by law:

Answer Yes or No _____________

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 165-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2023 Page 1 of 4
If you answered “NO” to Questions 1 and 2, please sign and date 

your verdict form.

If you answered “YES” to Questions 1 and 2, please answer 

Question 3.

3. That Grill Enterprises, LLC required one or both Plaintiffs to 

participate in a “tip pool”?

Answer Yes or No _____________

If you answered “NO” to Question 3, please skip to Question 5.

If you answered “YES” to Question 3, please answer Question 4.

4. That the “tip pool” was invalid?

Answer Yes or No _____________

If you answered “NO” to Question 1, please skip to Question 6.

If you answered “YES” to Question 1, please answer Question 5.

5. That Erik Chavez should be awarded damages?

Answer Yes or No _____________

If your answer is “Yes”,

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 165-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2023 Page 2 of 4
In what amount? $_____________

If you answered “NO” to Question 2, please skip to Question 8.

If you answered “YES” to Question 2, please answer Question 6.

6. That Leonel Diaz waived his right to recover any damages owed 

to him before the workweek ending March 9, 2019: 

Answer Yes or No _____________

Please answer the next Question.

7. That Leonel Diaz should be awarded damages?

Answer Yes or No _____________

If your answer is “Yes”,

In what amount? $_____________

8. That Ruben Sierra also was an employer of the Plaintiffs:

Answer Yes or No _____________

Please answer the next Question.

10. That one or both Defendants willfully violated the minimum 

wage laws?

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 165-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2023 Page 3 of 4
Answer Yes or No _____________

SO SAY WE ALL.

___________________________

Foreperson’s Signature

DATE: ___________________

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 165-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2023 Page 4 of 4
§ 315.13 Persons engaged by Firms to expedite petitions and Adjustment Proposals. EDA will provide no Adjustment Assistance to any Firm unless the owners, partners, members, directors, or officers thereof certify in writing to EDA: ( a ) The names of any attorneys, agents, and other Persons engaged by or on behalf of the Firm for the purpose of expediting petitions for such Adjustment Assistance or Adjustment Proposals; and
( b ) The fees paid or to be paid to any such Person.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

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

I-98-60 May 21, 1998

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC TO DISCUSS “MAINTENANCE RULE” CONCERNS AT CALVERT CLIFFS

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with

Baltimore Gas & Electric (BG&E) Company officials on Thursday,

May 28, to discuss three apparent violations of agency

requirements concerning implementation of the “Maintenance Rule”

program at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant. BG&E owns and

operates Calvert Cliffs, which is located in Lusby, Md.

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. in the

Public Meeting Room at the NRC Region I office in King of

Prussia, Pa. It will be open to the public for observation.

During an inspection conducted at Calvert Cliffs from

March 30 to April 3, NRC inspectors looked at BG&E’s compliance

with the agency’s Maintenance Rule. (Similar inspections have

been performed at dozens of plants across the country.) The

rule, which took effect in July 1996, requires nuclear power

plant owners to monitor the effectiveness of maintenance

activities for safety-significant equipment to provide reasonable

assurance -- particularly as plants age -- that it would be

capable of performing its intended functions if called upon

following an accident.

The inspectors found the following apparent violations

at Calvert Cliffs: A failure to include a number of systems that

fall within the Maintenance Rule in a category where heightened

scrutiny is necessary; a failure to establish performance

measures for the emergency diesel generator building’s heating,

ventilation and air-conditioning systems and thereby demonstrate

their continued operability; and a failure to include the safetyrelated portion of the emergency lighting located outside the

control room within the scope of the Maintenance Rule program.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement

conference does not mean that the NRC has determined a violation

has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. Rather,

the purpose is to discuss apparent violations, their causes and

safety significance; to provide the licensee with an opportunity

to point out any errors that may have been made in the NRC
2

inspection report; and to enable the licensee to outline its

proposed corrective action.

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at

this conference. That decision will be made by NRC officials at

a later time.

#
### §155. Compensation and expenses of Library of Congress Trust Fund Board

No compensation shall be paid to the members of the board for their services as such members, but they shall be reimbursed for the expenses necessarily incurred by them, out of the income from the fund or funds in connection with which such expenses are incurred. The voucher of the chairman of the board shall be sufficient evidence that the expenses are properly allowable. Any expenses of the board, including the cost of its seal, not properly chargeable to the income of any trust fund held by it, shall be estimated for in the annual estimates of the librarian for the maintenance of the Library of Congress.

(Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 423, §1, 43 Stat. 1107.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is comprised of second par. of section 1 of act Mar. 3, 1925. First par. of section 1 is classified to section 154 of this title.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 20, 2015. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, April 20, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15D0329. ABDUL MALIK CHESTNUT v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC..
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 12CV3815
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 9:20-CV-81244-DMM

WILLIAM HERBERT BRITT,

Plaintiff,

v.

WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP,

Defendant.

/

JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

COME NOW the parties to this action, Plaintiff, WILLIAM BRITT and Defendant, WAL-MART 

STORES EAST, LP (“WALMART”), acting through counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) hereby stipulate, in consideration of a negotiated settlement executed by them, to 

the Dismissal With Prejudice of this action, including all claims and counterclaims stated herein against all 

parties, with each party to bear its own attorney's fees and costs.

Date; April 21, 2022

RUBENSTEIN LAW

Counsel for Plaintiff

9130 S. Dadeland Blvd., PH

Miami, FL 33156 

(305) 661-6000

By: /s/ Peter Hunt

 PETER HUNT

 FL Bar No.: 107350

 eservice@rubensteinlaw.com

 phunt@rubensteinlaw.com

 ahertz@rubensteinlaw.com

 

LUKS, SANTANIELLO, PETRILLO,

COHEN & PETERFRIEND

Counsel for Defendant

110 Southeast 6th Street, 20th Floor

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

(954) 761-9900

By: /s/ Dorsey C. Miller, III

DANIEL J. SANTANIELLO

Florida Bar No.: 860948

DORSEY C. MILLER, III

Florida Bar No.: 580309

 LUKSFLL-Pleadings@LS-Law.com

Case 9:20-cv-81244-WM Document 143 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2022 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 9:20-CV-81244-DMM

WILLIAM HERBERT BRITT,

Plaintiff,

v.

WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP,

Defendant.

/

FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

IN CONSIDERATION of the foregoing Stipulation, it is:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the claims of Plaintiff, WILLIAM HERBERT 

BRITT, against Defendant, WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, are hereby dismissed with 

prejudice, each party to bear their own costs and attorney fees. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, 

Florida this day of _____ 2022.

HONORABLE FEDERAL COURT JUDGE 

Copies furnished:

Daniel J. Santaniello, Esq., and Dorsey Miller, Esq., Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo & Cohen 110 SE 

6th Street, 20th Floor, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301;LUKSFLL-Pleadings@LS-Law.com, 

Dmiller@insurancedefense.net, SIngleton@insurancedefense.net.

Peter Hunt, Esq., Rubenstein Law, 250 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 1000, West Palm Beach, FL 

33401 phunt@rubensteinlaw.com.com; ahertz@rubensteinlaw.com; 

eservice@rubensteinlaw.com

Case 9:20-cv-81244-WM Document 143 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2022 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>



Exhibit 99.2
Deloitte &
  Touche LLP
                    Suite 1200                  Telephone: (714) 436-7100
                    695 Town Center Drive       Facsimile: (714) 436-7200
                    Costa Mesa, California  92626-1924


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

We have examined management's assertion about First Alliance Mortgage Company's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers (USAP) as of and for the year ended December 31, 1997, included in the
accompanying management assertion. Management is responsible for First Alliance
Mortgage Company's compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about First Alliance Mortgage Company's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does
not provide a legal determination on First Alliance Mortgage Company's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that First Alliance Mortgage Company
complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the
year ended December 31, 1997 is fairly stated, in all respects.


\s\ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Costa Mesa, CA
January 19, 1998
39–008 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 109–201 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO 

SUSPEND THE RULES 

JULY 27, 2005.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. PUTNAM, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 395] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 395, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides that suspensions will be in order at any 

time on the legislative day of Thursday, July 28, 2005. The rule 

further provides that the Speaker or his designee shall consult with 

the Minority Leader or her designee on any suspension considered 

under the rule. 

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 62070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23704]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1564-DR]


New York; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and 
Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of New York (FEMA-1564-DR), dated October 1, 2004, and 
related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 13, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of New York is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of October 1, 2004:

    Cattaraugus and Orleans Counties for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs, 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program)

Michael D. Brown,
Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of 
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 04-23704 Filed 10-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
###### Editorial Note on Part 151

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93021, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 151.27 Weighing and sampling done at time of unlading.

Sugar, sirup, and molasses requiring either weighing or sampling shall be weighed or sampled at the time of unlading. When such merchandise requires both weighing and sampling, these operations shall be performed simultaneously.