alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2

Consolidated Case No. 4:20cv236-RH-MJF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

KIRK NIELSEN et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CONSOLIDATED

v. CASE NO. 4:20cv236-RH-MJF

RON DESANTIS et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL

Prior judgments dismissed all claims of the original plaintiffs in these two 

consolidated cases. The prior judgment in Case No. 1:20cv67 was entered under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The prior judgment in Case No. 4:20cv236 

resolved all claims among all parties in that individual case and thus was entered 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

The prior judgments left pending only claims of the intervening plaintiffs In 

Case No. 1:20cv67. Based on a settlement agreement, the intervening plaintiffs

have moved to dismiss their claims with prejudice and without retention of 

jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. This order directs the clerk to 

enter judgment accordingly. Because the judgment will resolve all remaining 

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 127 Filed 08/05/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 5:10cv150-RH/EMT

claims among all parties, it will be a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 final 

judgment.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The motion for voluntary dismissal, ECF No. 619, is granted.

2. The clerk must enter judgment in Case No. 1:20cv67 stating, “This 

judgment is entered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 and resolves all 

remaining claims among all parties. It is adjudged that the claims of the 

intervening plaintiffs Deborah C. Grubb, Douglas E. Hall, Carl F. McCoy, James 

K. Kracht, Dolor Ginchereau, and the Florida Council of the Blind are dismissed 

with prejudice.”

3. The clerk must close both of the consolidated cases—Cases No. 

4:20cv236 and 1:20cv67.

SO ORDERED on August 5, 2020.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00067-RH-GRJ Document 127 Filed 08/05/20 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.23


                             AEW Partners III, L.P.
                         c/o AEW Capital Management L.P.
                             World Trade Center East
                                Two Seaport Lane
                        Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2021

                                                              December 31, 2004

Boykin Lodging Company
Guild Hall Building
45 West Prospect Avenue
Suite 1500
Cleveland, OH 44115
Attention: Robert W. Boykin, Chief Executive Officer

Dear Bob:

         Reference is hereby made to that Stock Purchase Option Agreement by and
among Boykin Lodging Company, Boykin Hotel Properties, L.P. and AEW Partners
III, L.P. dated as of February 1, 1999 (the "Option Agreement"). Capitalized
terms used in this letter and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning set
forth in the Option Agreement.

         Purchaser hereby waives any right it may have to exercise the Exchange
Option and acknowledges that notwithstanding anything in the contrary contained
in the Option Agreement, Purchaser has no right, now or in the future, to
exercise the Exchange Option.

         Please feel free to call with any questions.

                                        Sincerely,

                                        AEW Partners III, L.P.

                                        By: AEW III, L.L.C.,
                                        its general partner

                                        By: AEW Partners III, Inc.:
                                        its managing member

                                        By: /s/  Marc L. Davidson
                                            -----------------------
                                            Name: Marc L. Davidson
                                            Title: Vice President
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MATHEW SELOVER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv4698-TKW-HTC

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS and RAYME

EDLER,

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER 

This case is before the Court based on the parties’ joint status report (Doc. 

62), which was filed in response to the Court’s inquiry regarding the status of the 

case against Defendant Edler. The report provides the information that the Court 

requested, and it also serves as the status report that was due from Plaintiff and 

Defendant Escambia County next week. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the parties shall continue to file status reports every 30 days, 

with the next report due on August 2, 2021.

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of July, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 63 Filed 07/02/21 Page 1 of 1
98-1074.

#### State v. Jalowiec.

Lorain App. No. 96CA006445. On motion to remand to trial court to complete record or, in the alternative, to stay proceedings. Motion denied.

F.E. Sweeney and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

§ 283.5 Motion to dismiss. ( a ) *Filing of motion to dismiss.* Prior to or at the same time as filing the answer, FNS may file a motion to dismiss. The appeal may be challenged on the basis that the notice of appeal was not filed within 10 days or as that time may have been extended by the ALJ, the appeal petition was not filed in accordance with § 283.4, or that the appeal petition is substantially incomplete and could not be quickly and easily cured by amendment. The motion must be accompanied by clear and convincing proof of any of these factors alleged as grounds for dismissal.
( b ) *Service of motion to dismiss.* FNS shall serve the State agency with a copy of the motion to dismiss. The State agency will have 10 days from date of service to submit objections to the motion.
( c ) *Ruling on a motion to dismiss.* The ALJ will rule on the motion to dismiss before any further action proceeds on the basis of the merits of the appeal. The basis of the ruling will be clearly documented and will become part of the official record. If the ALJ denies the motion, FNS shall file its answer in accordance with § 283.6 within 60 days of service of the ALJ's ruling, unless there is a motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to § 283.17(d) or review by the Judicial Officer is sought pursuant to § 283.20.
( d ) *Dismissal of appeal.* If the ALJ finds the basis for the motion to have merit, the appeal may be dismissed. The initial decision of the ALJ shall become final and effective 30 days after service in accordance with § 283.17(c)(2) unless either party pursues the options as discussed in §§ 283.17(d) and 283.20.
( e ) *Waiver.* Failure to file for dismissal of the appeal by the time the answer is required to be filed will result in waiver of the right to request dismissal.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1995
<CASH>                                       1,471,702
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,088,803
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,276,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,187,317
<PP&E>                                      10,771,242
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,015,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,827,609
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,223,102
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    258,488
<COMMON>                                        13,060
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,841,258
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,827,609
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,251,942
<CGS>                                       16,830,579
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               27,386,770
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,215,136
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             951,588
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,167)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (125,453)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            112,286
<DISCONTINUED>                               1,601,554
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,713,840
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.13
        

</TABLE>
ATTACHMENT A2 Amendment to EPA ICR #2249.01

Chemicals on Current List for Tier 1 Screening

Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11-20 21-45 46+

2,4-D 10 1

4,7–Methano–1H–isoindole–1,3(2H)–dione, 2–(2–ethylhexyl) 

–3a,4,7,7a–tetrahydro– (MGK-264) 6 1

Abamectin 8 1

Acephate 6 1

Atrazine 4 1

Benfluralin 2 1

Bifenthrin 6 1

Captan 4 1

Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl-, S-ethyl ester 3 1

Carbaryl 3 1

Carbofuran 1 1

Chlorothalonil 6 1

Chlorpyrifos 5 1

Cyfluthrin 1 1

Cypermethrin 5 1

DCPA (chlorthal-dimethyl) 1 1

Diazinon 2 1

Dichlobenil 2 1

Dicofol 1 1

Dimethoate 4 1

Disulfoton 1 1

Endosulfan 3 1

Esfenvalerate 3 1

Ethoprop 1 1

Fenbutatin oxide 1 1

Flutolanil 2 1

Folpet 2 1

Gardona (cis isomer) 2 1

Glyphosate 15 1

Imidacloprid 12 1

Iprodione 4 1

Linuron 2 1

Malathion 7 1

Metalaxyl 3 1

Methamidophos 1 1

Methidathion 2 1

Methomyl 1 1

Methyl Parathion 1 1

Metolachlor 4 1

Metribuzin 3 1

Myclobutanil 2 1

Norflurazon 1 1

O-phenylphenol 3 1

Oxamyl 1 1

Permethrin 10 1

Phosmet 1 1

Piperonyl Butoxide 7 1

# Identified Potential Order Recipients per Chemical

Updated Estimate for Number of Potential Recipients of EDSP Tier 1 Orders/DCIs 

As of September 3, 2009

Pesticide Actives

2249.01_Amendment-A2_Order Recipients_2009-09-09.xls Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT A2 Amendment to EPA ICR #2249.01

Chemicals on Current List for Tier 1 Screening

Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11-20 21-45 46+

# Identified Potential Order Recipients per Chemical

Propachlor 2 1

Propargite 1 1

Propiconazole 10 1

Propyzamide (pronamide) 2 1

Pyridine, 2-(1- methyl-2-(4-phenoxyphenoxy)ethoxy) 2 1

Quintozene 3 1

Resmethrin 1 1

Simazine 3 1

Tebuconazole 12 1

Triadimefon 2 1

Trifluralin 6 1

Sub-total for Pesticide Actives 219

Acetone 60 1

Butyl benzyl phthalate 14 1

Dibutyl phthalate 30 1

Diethyl phthalate 13 1

Dimethyl phthalate 19 1

Di-sec-octyl phthalate 38 1

Isophorone 4 1

Methyl ethyl ketone 42 1

Toluene 310 1

Sub-total for Pesticidal Inert Chemicals 530

Total Potential Order Recipients 749

15 13 9 6 2 5 2 1 0 3 6 3 2

Pesticidal Inert Chemicals

Distibution of # Recipients per Chemical

1-5 = 45 6-10 = 11

2249.01_Amendment-A2_Order Recipients_2009-09-09.xls Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's audited financial statements for the year ended March 31, 1997 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                  5,322
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                             204
<ALLOWANCES>                               53
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        5,802
<PP&E>                                 79,153
<DEPRECIATION>                         12,155
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         74,278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     787
<BONDS>                                21,947
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                             51,213
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           74,278
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        5,770
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           4,346
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        2,700
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      1,990
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (3,266)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (3,266)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                           (3,266)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (24.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (24.04)
        

</TABLE>
#### WASHBURN v. RAINIER et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 20, 1914.)

Costs (§ 244*)—Reversal—Taxation.

An order of the Appellate Division that the judgment appealed from should be reversed, with costs to abide the event, when read with a subsequent order resettling the costs, applied only to the costs and disburse- . ments which had accrued between the date of the original order of re*52versal and the resettlement thereof, which were the taxable costs in the Court of Appeals before argument and proper disbursements in connection therewith.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Costs, Cent. Dig. §§ 940-946; Dee. Dig. I 244.*]

Appeal from Special Term, Nassau County.

Action by Henry J. Washburn against John T. Rainier and others. From a Special Term order as resettled, denying the motion of defendants John T. Rainier and Paul N. Lineberger for a readjustment of costs, they appeal. Reversed, appeal from taxation of costs sustained, and motion to strike out the costs as taxed, except those in Court of Appeals before argument, and disbursements for printing the case in the Court of Appeals, and printing the points, granted.

See, also, 144 N. Y. Supp. 1149.

Argued before JENKS, P. J., and BURR, THOMAS, CARR, and PUTNAM, JJ.

T. G. Durkan, of New York City, for appellants.

Jesse Fuller, Jr., of Brooklyn, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

PER CURIAM.

When the provision of the original order of this court of March 15, 1912, to the effect that the judgment appealed from be reversed, “with costs of the action to abide the event,” is read in connection with the order of this court of December 12, 1913, resettling the same, it seems to us perfectly clear that upon such resettlement it was the purpose of this court to permit plaintiff, if he desired, to retrace the steps which he had taken upon the strength of the form of the order as originally entered, and to compensate him for any expense that he had incurred by reason thereof. Bearing this in mind, it is equally clear that the only costs and disbursements that were to be paid were those which had accrued in the interval between the date of the original order of reversal and the resettlement thereof. These were taxable costs in the Court of Appeals before argument, and such disbursements in connection with such appeal as would be properly taxable, and which had been made up to that time.

The order appealed from should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, the appeal from the taxation of costs sustained, and the motion granted to strike out all of the costs as taxed, except costs in the Court of Appeals before argument, and disbursements for printing the case in the Court of Appeals and printing the points.
#### CARITEY v. EGGERS et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

June 27, 1906,)

Appeal—Costs—Academic Question.

The question on appeal being academic, no costs will be allowed, notwithstanding a reversal.

Appeal from Special Term.

Action by Jules Constant Caritey against Frederick H. Eggers and another. From an adverse order, defendants appeal. Reversed.

PER CURIAM.

We must assume that the order setting aside the service was properly made. The defendants’ subsequent voluntary appearance does not justify a reopening of that motion. For the reason that the question is academic, no costs are allowed.

Order reversed, and motion denied.

Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied, without costs.
#### § 29.2298 Sound.

Free of damage.

[37 FR 13521, July 11, 1972. Redesignated at 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Robert Lee Johnson, Appellant, v. Daniel J. McMann, as Warden of Clinton Prison, Respondent.

—■ Motion to be relieved of assignment on the ground that no timely appeal was taken denied. We deem the application of September 29,1966, a sufficient notice of appeal. Counsel is directed to correct the omission to file a copy thereof in the office of the Clerk of the County of Clinton, and appellant’s time to cure such omission extended to March 15, 1967. (CPLR 5520, subd. [a].) Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Chardan South China
Acquisition Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May
31, 2006 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof, I Kerry Propper, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/ Kerry Propper                                         Dated: August 21, 2006
---------------------------------------------
Kerry Propper
Chief Executive Officer and Secretary
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### § 29.2351 Elements of quality and degrees of each element.

Tobacco attributes or characteristics which constitute quality are designated as elements of quality. The range within each element is expressed by words or terms designated as degrees. These degrees are arranged to show their relative value and are used in determining the quality of tobacco. The actual value of each degree varies with group.

| Elements | | Degrees | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Body | Thin | Medium | Heavy. |
| Maturity | Immature | Mature | Ripe. |
| Leaf structure | Close | Firm | Open. |
| Oil | Lean | Oily | Rich. |
| Elasticity | Inelastic | Semielastic | Elastic. |
| Strength | Weak | Normal | Strong. |
| Finish | Dull | Clear | Bright. |
| Color Intensity | Pale | Moderate | Deep. |
| Width | Narrow | Normal | Spready Broad. |
| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Uniformity. Expressed in percentages. | | | |
| Injury tolerance. Expressed in percentages. | | | |
#### § 28.515 Leaf Grade No. 5.

Leaf grade No. 5 shall be American Pima cotton which in leaf is within the range represented by a set of samples in the custody of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in a container marked “Original Official Cotton Standards of the United States, American Pima, Leaf Grade No. 5, effective July 1, 2001.”

[65 FR 36601, June 9, 2000]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 222 (Thursday, November 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70712-70713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29104]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Docket No. APHIS-2010-0039]


General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement 
Plan; Reestablishment

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of reestablishment.

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

SUMMARY: We are giving notice that the Secretary of Agriculture has 
reestablished the General Conference Committee of the National Poultry 
Improvement Plan (Committee) for a 2-year period. The Secretary of 
Agriculture has determined that the Committee is necessary and in the 
public interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Andrew R. Rhorer, Senior 
Coordinator, National Poultry Improvement Plan, VS, APHIS, USDA, Suite 
101, 1498 Klondike Road, Conyers, GA 30094; (770) 922-3496.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the General Conference 
Committee of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (Committee) is to

[[Page 70713]]

maintain and ensure industry involvement in Federal administration of 
matters pertaining to poultry health.
    The Committee Chairperson and the Vice Chairperson shall be elected 
by the Committee from among its members. There are seven members on the 
Committee. This committee differs somewhat from other advisory 
committees in the selection process and composition of its membership. 
The poultry industry elects the members of the Committee. The members 
represent six geographic areas with one member-at-large. The membership 
is not subject to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's review.
    A formal request for nominations for membership is generally 
published in the Federal Register. However, the Committee is making no 
changes to its membership at this time.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of November 2010.
Pearlie S. Reed,
Assistant Secretary for Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-29104 Filed 11-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
#### COHEN, Respondent, v. HELLAR, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department

June 8, 1906.)

Action by Samuel Cohen against Max Hellar.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Tim Wan, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment
No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Apigee Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



|                    |  |  |  |                                             
|------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------
|Date: June 22, 2015 |  |  |  | By:                                         
|                    |  | 
|                    |  |  |  | /s/ Tim Wan                                 
|                    |  |  |  | Tim Wan                                     
|                    |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                    |  |  |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)