alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Ines SALAZAR-OROZCO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-50612

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 8, 2007.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western *435District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Ines Salazar-Orozco raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. *See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *petition for cert. filed*(Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Re: HFO 1234yf Notes Link Ma rgaret Sheppard to : Hayes, Wi lliam D. 04/19/2010 04:54 PM Mr. Hayes, The public comment period ended on Feb. 24. W e aim to have a final rule later this year (late summer/early fall, depending on the circumstances). Yes, both programs apply independently. Margaret Sheppard Environmental Scientist Significant New Alternatives Policy Program USEPA/Stratospheric Protection Division Tel. 202 - 343 - 9163 Fax 202 - 343 - 2338 em ail: sheppard.margaret@epa.gov

From: "Hayes, W illiam D." <WD Hayes@vorys.com> To: Margaret Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 04/16/2010 01:41 PM Subject: HFO 1234yf
Hi Ms. Sheppard, Would it be possible to give me an idea of proximately when USEPA might take final action of the SNAP proposed rule for HFO
- 1234yf? I understand the comment period closed January 4, 2010 but several colleagues have mentioned it was extended 9I haven’t been able to find anything on an extension). Finally, as I read the CAA and rules, there is no statutory time frame that USEPA has to complete the review and issue a final action. That’s part of why I am trying to get a feel for a rough timeframe of final action. Also, despite arguments I have been receiving to the contrary, while the SNAP and TSCA SNUR programs complement each other, they are still independent and a chemical must be approved both under SNAP and SNUR if used as a MVAC refrigera nt (like HFO will). Is that your understanding also? Thanks for your help and have a great weekend Bill hayes wdhayes@vorys.com 513 - 723 - 4024From the law offices of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP.

IRS C IRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: In order to ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be us ed, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another person, any transaction or other matter addressed herein .

____________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e - mail message is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any unauthorized review , use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e - mail and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient but do not wish to receive communications th rough this medium, please so advise the sender immediately.

[attachment "E9- 25106[1].pdf" deleted by Margaret Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US]
Case: 1:12-cv-02637 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/10/12 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:1

Case: 1:12-cv-02637 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/10/12 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:2

Case: 1:12-cv-02637 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/10/12 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:3

Case: 1:12-cv-02637 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/10/12 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:4

Case: 1:12-cv-02637 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/10/12 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:5

Case: 1:12-cv-02637 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/10/12 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:6

Case: 1:12-cv-02637 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/10/12 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:7

Case: 1:12-cv-02637 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/10/12 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:8

Case: 1:12-cv-02637 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/10/12 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:9

Case: 1:12-cv-02637 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/10/12 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:10

Case: 1:12-cv-02637 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/10/12 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:11

Case: 1:12-cv-02637 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/10/12 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:12

Case: 1:12-cv-02637 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/10/12 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:13

Case: 1:12-cv-02637 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/10/12 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:14

Case: 1:12-cv-02637 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/10/12 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:15

Case: 1:12-cv-02637 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/10/12 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:16

Case: 1:12-cv-02637 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/10/12 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:17
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

PHILIP G. MAVON, JR. and OMA JEAN MAVON,

Appellants,

v.

CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE and SCOTT S. LIBERMAN,

Appellees.

Nos. 4D20-1271 and 4D20-1486

[April 21, 2021]

Consolidated nonfinal appeals from the Circuit Court for the 

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; David A. Haimes, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. CACE18-28446 (08).

Alan R. Poppe of Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellants.

Brent M. Reitman of Liberman Cabrera Thompson & Reitman, PLLC, 

Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Scott S. Liberman.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants appeal a nonfinal order granting a temporary injunction that 

directs them to remove their boat from a boat lift pending trial. We reverse 

and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

It is well-settled that the party seeking injunctive relief must establish 

a factual basis to support the elements of a claim for injunctive relief. 

Olson v. Olson, 260 So. 3d 367, 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). Thus, appellees, 

appellants’ neighbors, had to present evidence to establish that: (1) 

irreparable injury will result if the injunction is not granted; (2) there is no 

adequate remedy at law; (3) the party has a clear legal right to the 

requested relief; and (4) the public interest will be served by the temporary 

injunction. Id. at 368–69.

As movants, appellees bore the burden of providing competent, 

substantial evidence to satisfy each element. SunTrust Banks, Inc. v. 

Cauthon & McGuigan, PLC, 78 So. 3d 709, 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). To 

support their arguments during the hearings, appellees offered counsel’s 
2

arguments, administrative rulings regarding the boat lift, and 

photographs, none of which was sufficient evidence to meet that burden. 

See Olson, 260 So. 3d at 369 (concluding that statements of counsel along 

with a verified motion with attachments were inadequate to establish the 

requisite proof); see also Tarantola v. Henghold, 254 So. 3d 1110, 1112 

(Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (concluding that screenshots of a website as proof that 

the website existed on a certain day to support injunctive relief were 

insufficient where screenshots were not entered into evidence).

Consequently, we reverse the temporary injunction and remand for the 

trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing and if appellees meet their

burden, to enter an order with sufficient factual findings as required by 

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610.

Reversed and remanded.

WARNER, GERBER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 57 

Expressing the sense of Congress supporting the State of Israel. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 17, 2023 

Mr. PFLUGER (for himself, Mr. KUSTOFF, Mr. MILLER of Ohio, Mr. WALTZ, 

Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. CARTER of Texas, Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas, Ms. VAN

DUYNE, Mrs. BICE, Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia, Mr. MORAN, Mr. 

ADERHOLT, Mr. WEBSTER of Florida, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. SELF, Mr. OGLES, Mr. MOOLENAAR, Mr. KEAN of New 

Jersey, Mr. RESCHENTHALER, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. MANN, Mr. JACKSON

of Texas, Mr. MOSKOWITZ, Mr. GARBARINO, and Mr. FEENSTRA) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the 

Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress supporting the State of 

Israel. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that— 

3 (1) the State of Israel is not a racist or apart4 heid state; 

5 (2) Congress rejects all forms of antisemitism 

6 and xenophobia; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 57 IH 

1 (3) the United States will always be a staunch 

2 partner and supporter of Israel. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 11, 2014

No. 04-14-00181-CR

Michael A. RIVAS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-04-10954-CR

The Honorable Camile G. Dubose, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s brief is due June 30, 2014. On June 10, 2014, appellant filed a motion for 

extension of time asking for a 90-day extension of time to file his brief, i.e., to September 30, 

2014. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. We grant 

appellant an extension of time to August 29, 2014, sixty days from the original due date.

Appellant is not precluded from filing an additional motion for extension of time to file the brief 

if one is necessary.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 11th day of June, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
39.204 Exceptions. ( a ) The requirements in 39.203 do not apply to acquisitions for— ( 1 ) *National security systems.* ICT operated by agencies as part of a national security system, as defined by 40 U.S.C. 11103(a);
( 2 ) *Incidental contract items.* ICT acquired by a contractor incidental to a contract, *i.e.,* for in-house use by the contractor to perform the contract; or
( 3 ) *Maintenance or monitoring spaces.* The portions of ICT that are operable parts (*i.e.,* hardware-based user controls for activating, deactivating, or adjusting ICT) or status indicators, and that are located in spaces frequented only by service personnel for maintenance, repair, or occasional monitoring of equipment.
( b ) The contracting officer shall receive, as a part of the requirements documentation, written confirmation from the requiring activity that an exception, in accordance with paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, applies to the ICT supply or service (see 7.105(b)(5)(iv)). This documentation shall be maintained in the contract file.
[86 FR 44232, Aug. 11, 2021]
32.501-1 Customary progress payment rates. ( a ) The customary progress payment rate is 80 percent, applicable to the total costs of performing the contract. The customary rate for contracts with small business concerns is 85 percent.
( b ) The contracting officer must— ( 1 ) Consider any rate higher than those permitted in paragraph (a) of this section an unusual progress payment; and
( 2 ) Not include a higher rate in a contract unless advance agency approval is obtained as prescribed in 32.501-2.
( c ) When advance payments and progress payments are authorized under the same contract, the contracting officer must not authorize a progress payment rate higher than the customary rate.
( d ) In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 3804(b) and 41 U.S.C. 4504(b), the limit for progress payments is 80 percent on work accomplished under undefinitized contract actions. The contracting officer must not authorize a higher rate under unusual progress payments or other customary progress payments for the undefinitized actions.
[65 FR 16279, Mar. 27, 2000, as amended at 79 FR 24211, Apr. 29, 2014; 87 FR 73899, Dec. 1, 2022]
#### 2833.214-70 Policy.

It is DOJ's goal to resolve contract disputes before the issuance of a contracting officer's final decision under the Contract Disputes Act. Therefore, contracting officers will consider all possible means of reaching a negotiated settlement consistent with the Government's best interest, before issuing a final decision on a contractor claim under the process outlined in FAR 33.206 through 33.211.
# C_2018173EN.01000501.xml

| 22.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/5

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2018/C 173/05)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : Greece

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : Kostis Palamas – 75 years in memoriam

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : The design features a portrait of the Greek poet Kostis Palamas (1859-1943). Inscribed along the inner edge at left is the wording ‘HELLENIC REPUBLIC’ and the name ‘KOSTIS PALAMAS’ (in Greek). Also inscribed is a palmette (the mintmark of the Greek Mint) and the year of issuance ‘2018’. Visible at the lower right is the monogram of the artist (George Stamatopoulos).

Description of the design

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Estimated number of coins to be issued
  :

Estimated number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  : Middle of 2018

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
3.101-3 Agency regulations. ( a ) Agencies are required by Executive Order 11222 of May 8, 1965, and 5 CFR part 735 to prescribe *Standards of Conduct.* These agency standards contain— ( 1 ) Agency-authorized exceptions to 3.101-2; and
( 2 ) Disciplinary measures for persons violating the standards of conduct.
( b ) Requirements for employee financial disclosure and restrictions on private employment for former Government employees are in Office of Personnel Management and agency regulations implementing Public Law 95-521, which amended 18 U.S.C. 207.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.1.1

Eastern Division

Jose Lopez

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−05751

Honorable John Robert Blakey

City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, February 23, 2017:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Jury trial held on

2/23/2017 and continued to 2/24/2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1725; attorneys shall

appear at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice(gel, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 196 Filed: 02/23/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:3900
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2012 - 0858 Directorate Identifier: 2011NM183AD

A300 -53 - 0297, R2 --- 10/31/95 A300 -57 - 6053, R03 --- 5/28/02

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
**Who May Apply: (by category)**Institutions  of Higher Education (IHEs) or State higher education agencies.

**Who May Apply: (specifically)**
Eligible  applicants are IHEs as defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of  1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1001), or State higher education agencies  that--

(a) Lead the activities of a  consortium that is comprised of at least:
  i.   Three IHEs, as defined in section 101 of the HEA;   ii.   An educational technology or electronic curriculum design expert (which may include such experts that are employed by one or more of the consortium institutions); and  iii. An advisory group of at least three employers, workforce organizations, or sector partners (as defined in the NIA); and

(b) Have demonstrated experience in the development and  implementation of open educational resources.

 

FIPSE Home
  Last Modified: 09/21/2020
#### Ubirajara Da Costa Fonseca, Respondent, v Frota Oceanica Brasileira, S. A., et al., Appellants. Jesse White et al., Respondents, v Frota Oceanica Brasileira, S. A., et al., Appellants.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 16, 1977, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal payable to appellants by respondents to grant defendants-appellants’ motions to dismiss these actions on grounds of *forum non conveniens*on condition that defendants-appellants stipulate to accept service of process in an action or actions to be commenced by plaintiffs in the State of Florida, to waive any defense of the Statute of Limitations therein and to use in the Florida litigation the discovery already achieved in these consolidated actions. If defendants-appellants fail to so stipulate within 30 days after service of the order entered hereon, the order is affirmed, with $75 costs and disbursements payable to respondents. Florida is clearly the most convenient forum for these actions for personal injuries sustained in that jurisdiction. Except for one plaintiff, a resident of Brazil, the plaintiffs are domiciled in Florida where they all received medical treatment. Defendants-appellants also expect to implead the Florida owners of the dock where the injuries were sustained, who are not subject to process in New York. In short, there are virtually no New York contacts with this litigation. Consequently, it was improvident for Special Term to have denied the motions to dismiss on the usual conditions which we have imposed upon granting similar motions. Concur — Lupiano, J. P., Silverman, Evans, Fein and Markewich, JJ.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

|                                                              |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                              | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesAwardsFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Home |
|                                                              |

----

**NOTE:**On February 1, 2022, OSERS will complete the migration its IDEA Section 618 Data Products to a new, improved platform on OpenData. This new enhanced site is now online for you to check out and we suggest changing any links or bookmarks to reflect this new site's URL: 

**https://data.ed.gov/dataset/idea-section-618-data-products**

Section 618 of the *Individuals with Disabilities Education Act* (*IDEA*) requires that each state submit data about the infants and toddlers, birth through age 2, who receive early intervention services under Part C of *IDEA* and children with disabilities, ages 3 through 21, who receive special education and related services under Part B of *IDEA*.

**Collection Documentation****State Level Data Files****Static Data Tables****Useful Data Links*****IDEA* Annual Reports to Congress****Contact Us**

 Top

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

SHANNON M. STONE
, Appellant,

v.

MARTIN S. STONE
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 2700

[ May 3, 2018 ]

Appeal of non

- final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Fabienne B. Fahnestock , Judge; L.T.

Case No. 04

- 024292 (35) (91)

.

Thomas W. Walters of Thomas W. Walters, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.

Lisa K. Bennett of Fischler & Friedman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER
, C.J., C IKLIN and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.