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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DISTRICT 

IN RE: 3m COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS 

LIABILITY LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to 

Stephen Blackburn, 7:20-cv-46474

 Case No. 3:19-md-2885 

Hon. Judge M. Casey Rodgers 

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones 

TO: The Clerk of court and all parties of record 

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as 

counsel for Plaintiff, Stephen Blackburn. 

Date: April 16, 2020 

Respectfully Submitted,

HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON, LLP 

By: /s/ Jason W. Earley

Jason W. Earley (pro hac vice) 

ALBN 3427Q10M 

HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON, LLP 

2025 Third Avenue North, 8th Floor 

Birmingham, AL 35203 

jason@hwnn.com

Phone: 205-328-5330 

Facsimile: 205-324-2165 

Attorney for Plaintiff Stephen Blackburn

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned, an attorney, certifies that the foregoing Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice was 

filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system on April 16, 2020 which 

will serve same electronically on all counsel of record. 

/s/ Jason W. Earley 

Case 7:20-cv-46474-MCR-GRJ Document 4 Filed 04/16/20 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2304 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2304

                   For the relief of Amer Numan Adi.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 6, 2013

 Mr. Ryan of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Amer Numan Adi.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR AMER NUMAN ADI.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Amer Numan Adi shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Amer Numan Adi enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), he shall 
be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Amer Numan Adi, the Secretary 
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the 
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant 
visas that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's 
birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, 
if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
available to natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 
202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Amer Numan 
Adi shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, 
privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 12.1
  KB
    HOME
    COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
    (In Thousands, Except Ratios)
  Years Ended November 30,2009


2008


2007


2006


2005EarningsIncome (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes

$
(311,184
)

$
(967,931
)

$
(1,460,770
)

$
571,847


$
1,201,534Add:Interest incurred


119,602



156,402



199,550



237,801



164,245Amortization of premiums and discounts related to debt


1,586



2,062



2,478



2,441



1,550Portion of rent expense considered to be interest


7,507



16,503



28,464



27,657



19,294Amortization of previously capitalized interest


138,179



129,901



171,496



143,249



100,971Distribution of earnings from unconsolidated joint ventures, net
    of equity in income (loss)


43,262



157,393



171,576



15,164



(2,472
)Deduct:Interest capitalized


(67,839
)


(143,436
)


(186,560
)


(221,074
)


(142,738
)Income (loss) as adjusted

$
(68,887
)

$
(649,106
)

$
(1,073,766
)

$
777,085


$
1,342,384Fixed chargesInterest incurred

$
119,602


$
156,402


$
199,550


$
237,801


$
164,245Amortization of premiums and discounts related to debt


1,586



2,062



2,478



2,441



1,550Portion of rent expense considered to be interest


7,507



16,503



28,464



27,657



19,294$
128,695


$
174,967


$
230,492


$
267,899


$
185,089Ratio of earnings to fixed charges














2.90



7.25Coverage deficiency (a)

$
(197,582
)

$
(824,073
)

$
(1,304,258
)

$



$
       (a)
    
    Earnings for the years ended November 30, 2009, 2008 and
    2007 were insufficient to cover fixed charges for the periods by
    $197.6 million, $824.1 million and $1.30 billion,
    respectively.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 1:92-cr-01005-MMP

PATRICK LEE FRANK,

Defendant.

________________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 119, Motion for Clarification of Issues, filed by

Defendant Patrick Lee Frank. A telephone status conference as to the conditional release of

Defendant Frank was held on Friday, July 13, 2007. During the conference, the Government

objected to any release of the Defendant, and a hearing on this issue was ordered. In his motion,

Defendant Frank requests clarification of the issues that will be addressed at the hearing so that

his counsel can adequately prepare. The Court advises Defendant that the only issues to be

heard and decided are the suitability of the proposed facility and the conditions of Defendant’s

release. Accordingly, a hearing on this matter is hereby set for Thursday, August 30, 2007, at

1:30 p.m.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of July, 2007

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:92-cr-01005-MP Document 120 Filed 07/26/07 Page 1 of 1
98-1147.

#### Simons v. W. Res. Tel. Co.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 96-1405-TP-CSS. On *sua sponte*motion to strike notice of appeal. Motion granted.

On motion to correct case caption. Motion denied.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
```

[Federal Register: June 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 109)]
[Notices]               
[Page 32532-32533]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08jn10-163]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7038]

 
Notice of Meeting of the Advisory Committee on International Law

    A meeting of the Advisory Committee on International Law will take 
place on Monday, June 21, 2010, from 9:30 a.m. to approximately 5:30 
p.m., at the George Washington University Law School (Michael K. Young 
Faculty Conference Center, 5th Floor), 2000 H St., NW., Washington, DC. 
The meeting will be chaired by the Legal Adviser of

[[Page 32533]]

the Department of State, Harold Hongju Koh, and will be open to the 
public up to the capacity of the meeting room. It is anticipated that 
the agenda of the meeting will cover a range of current international 
legal topics, including the International Criminal Court review 
conference and ad hoc international criminal tribunals; the law of war 
regarding detention, targeting, and prosecution; binding international 
agreements and non-binding arrangements; nuclear nonproliferation; 
international cooperation on piracy; the international responsibility 
of international organizations, and the International Law Commission. 
Members of the public will have an opportunity to participate in the 
discussion.
    Members of the public who wish to attend the session should, by 
Tuesday, June 15, 2010, notify the Office of the Legal Adviser 
(telephone: 202-776-8323) of their name, professional affiliation, 
address, and telephone number. A valid photo ID is required for 
admittance. A member of the public who needs reasonable accommodation 
should make his or her request by June 14, 2010; requests made after 
that time will be considered but might not be possible to accommodate.

    Dated: June 2, 2010.
David DeBartolo,
Executive Director, Office of Claims and Investment Disputes, Office of 
the Legal Adviser, Advisory Committee on International Law, Department 
of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-13704 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
consolidated balance sheet of Transnational  Industries,  Inc. as of January 31,
2000 and the related consolidated  statement of operations and statement of cash
flows for the year then ended and is  qualified  in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements. with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000796228
<NAME>                        Transnational Industries Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                         107
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2173
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    1716
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4513
<PP&E>                                         2838
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1932
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7905
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3330
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    73
<COMMON>                                       100
<OTHER-SE>                                     3523
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7905
<SALES>                                        10212
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10212
<CGS>                                          7137
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7137
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               820
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             94
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                519
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (368)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            854
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   854
<EPS-BASIC>                                    1.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.65


</TABLE>
#### Heman M. Pratt v. Chapin J. Miller, *et al.*

*Error from Douglas County.*

When there is no question raised on the pleadings and they appear regular, and where no Bill of Exceptions, showing the evidence, appears in the record of this Court, the presumption is that the judgment of the Court bel'ow was rendered on sufficient and competent testimony.

The facts of the case appear in the subjoined opinion of the Court.

*Bowman*c6 *Banles*for plaintiff in error.

No counsel for defence.

Case submitted on brief for plaintiff.

*193
      *jBy the Court,*

Kingman J.

This action was brought by Heman M. Pratt, the plaintiff in error in the District Court of Douglas County, against Chapin J. Miller and others, on a note and mortgage given by Miller to plaintiff. The other defendants alleged in the petition to have an interest in the mortgaged premises, did not appear. Miller set up in his defence that he was at the time of the execution of the mortgage sued on, a married man, having a wife then and still living, that he resided upon and occupied as a homestead the premises mortgaged, with his wife and family, and that the mortgage is void because the mortgage was not signed and executed by his, defendant’s wife, and that the mortgage was not given to secure the payment of the purchase inoney. The Court held the mortgage void and gave the plaintiff judgment for his money.

There was no question raised on the pleadings. There is no Bill of Exceptions showing the evidence. Nothing but the petition, answer and judgment. These all appear regular, and the presumption is that the judgment was tendered on sufficient and competent testimony.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

All the justices concurring.
§ 3430.62 Award appeals procedures. ( a ) *General.* NIFA permits awardees to appeal certain post-award adverse administrative decisions made by NIFA. These include: termination, in whole or in part, of an award for failure of the awardee to carry out its approved project in accordance with the applicable law and the terms and conditions of award or for failure of the awardee otherwise to comply with any law, regulation, assurance, term, or condition applicable to the award; denial (withholding) of a non-competing continuation award for failure to comply with the terms of a previous award; and determination that an award is void (*i.e.,* a decision that an award is invalid because it was not authorized by statute or regulation or because it was fraudulently obtained). Appeals of determinations regarding the allowability of costs are subject to the procedures in § 3430.59.
( b ) *Appeal Procedures.* The formal notification of an adverse determination will contain a statement of the awardee's appeal rights. As the first level in appealing an adverse determination, the awardee must submit a request for review to the NIFA official specified in the notification, detailing the nature of the disagreement with the adverse determination and providing supporting documents in accordance with the procedures contained in the notification. The awardee's request to NIFA for review must be received within 60 days after receipt of the written notification of the adverse determination; however, an extension may be granted if the awardee can show good cause why an extension is warranted.
( c ) *Decision.* If the NIFA decision on the appeal is adverse to the awardee or if an awardee's request for review is rejected, the awardee then has the option of submitting a request to the NIFA Office of Grants and Financial Management (OGFM) Deputy Director for further review. The decision of the NIFA Office of Grants and Financial Management (OGFM) Deputy Director is considered final.
[74 FR 45740, Sept. 4, 2009, as amended at 79 FR 76001, Dec. 19, 2014]
#### North American Foreign Trading Corp. et al., Respondents, v Sidney Rosen, Appellant.

— Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 27, 1979, unanimously dismissed as nonappealable and the matter remanded for decision of the underlying motion, without costs or disbursements. Had we reached the merits on the basis of the present record, we would have granted the motion to confirm the arbitration *884award. As conceded on argument, however, Special Term had the absolute right to take evidence at a hearing in furtherance of a decision on the motion before the court. The court, feeling the need for such additional evidence, exercised its personal discretion. Inasumch as the Special Term Justice has retired from the Bench since the order was made, we must indicate that the successor court will make its own decision as to the need for a hearing in proceeding to decide the motion. Concur—Fein, J. P., Sullivan, Bloom and Markewich, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71416-71417]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29471]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: Coast Pilot Report.
    OMB Control Number: 0648-0007.
    Form Number(s): NOAA 77-6.
    Type of Request: Regular submission (renewal of a current 
information collection).
    Number of Respondents: 100.
    Average Hours per Response: 30 minutes.

[[Page 71417]]

    Burden Hours: 50.
    Needs and Uses: This notice is for renewal of a current information 
collection.
    NOAA produces the U.S. Coast Pilot, a series of nine books that 
supplement marine nautical charts. The Coast Pilot contains information 
essential to navigators in U.S. coastal and intra-coastal waters but 
that cannot be shown graphically on paper nautical charts. This 
publication is required by Federal Regulations (33 CFR 164.33) to be 
carried on-board all vessels of 1,600 gross tons and greater, while 
traversing U.S. waters. The Coast Pilot Report form is offered to the 
public as a means for recommending changes to the publication.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#753a3c27342a260017181c06061c1a1b351a18175b101a055b121a03"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a0efe9f2e1fff3d5c2cdc9d3d3c9cfcee0cfcdc28ec5cfd08ec7cfd6">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#76123e0f18131d3612191558111900"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f793bf8e99929cb7939894d9909881">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#541b1d06150b072136393d27273d3b3a143b39367a313b247a333b22"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="afe0e6fdeef0fcdacdc2c6dcdcc6c0c1efc0c2cd81cac0df81c8c0d9">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: November 18, 2010.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-29471 Filed 11-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JE-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 29.3617 Rule 16.

Normal injury associated with ripeness shall be excluded from injury tolerance except when such injury is considered detrimental to the quality of the tobacco.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:89-cr-01018-MP

CARL EUGENE GRIFFIN,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1268, Mr. Griffin's Motion to Reduce Sentence

pursuant to retroactive application of Sentencing Guidelines to Crack Cocaine Offenses and 18

U.S.C. § 3582. Previously, however, the Court, sua sponte, entered an order finding that Mr.

Griffin is not eligible for a reduction. Specifically, the Court at Doc. 1253 held:

Here, the defendant is currently serving a sentence of life, which was the only

option for his Total Offense Level of 44. Under the Amended Guidelines, his

range is still life, because of the quantity of drugs attributed to him. Because the

amendment does not lower the guideline range applicable to this defendant, §

1B1.10(a)(1) does not permit the Court to reduce the original sentence.

Nothing in the motion at Doc. 1268 supports departing from the Court's previous ruling. 

Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The motion for reduction of sentence, Doc. 1268, is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of December, 2008

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:89-cr-01018-MP-GRJ Document 1280 Filed 12/29/08 Page 1 of 1
#### § 29.1085 Width.

The relative breadth of a tobacco leaf expressed in relation to its length. Width, as an element of quality, does not apply to tobacco in strip form. (See Elements of Quality Chart.)

| Elements | | | Degrees | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Maturity | Immature | Unripe | Mature | Ripe | Mellow. |
| Leaf structure | Tight | Close | Firm | Open | |
| Body | Heavy | Fleshy | Medium | Thin | |
| Oil | Lean | Oily | Rich | | |
| Color intensity | Pale | Weak | Moderate | Strong | Deep. |
| Width | Stringy | Narrow | Normal | Spready | |
| Length | | (1 ) | (1 ) | (1 ) | |
| Uniformity | | (2 ) | (2 ) | (2 ) | |
| Injury tolerance | | (2 ) | (2 ) | (2 ) | |
| Waste tolerance | | (2 ) | (2 ) | (2 ) | |
| | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 Expressed in inches. | | | | | |
| 2 Expressed in percentage. | | | | | |

[[42 FR 21092](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/42-FR-21092), Apr. 25, 1977. Redesignated at [47 FR 51721](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/47-FR-51721), Nov. 17, 1982, and at [48 FR 29671](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/48-FR-29671), June 28, 1983. Redesignated and amended at [49 FR 16756](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/49-FR-16756), Apr. 20, 1984, and further redesignated at [51 FR 25027](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/51-FR-25027), July 10, 1986]
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.17

 BASE SALARIES OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF HAVERTY FURNITURE COMPANIES, INC.

The  following  table sets forth the 2005 annual  base salary  levels of Haverty
Furniture  Companies,  Inc.'s  named  executive  officers  for  the  2005  proxy
statement (as defined in Item 402(a)(3) of Regulation S-K):

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME                   POSITION                                             BASE SALARY
----                   --------                                             -----------
<S>                    <C>                                                  <C>
Clarence H. Ridley     Chairman                                             $   410,000
Clarence H. Smith      President and Chief Executive Officer                    420,000
Dennis L. Fink         Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer        320,000
M. Tony Wilkerson      Senior Vice President, Marketing                         260,000
Rawson Haverty, Jr.    Senior Vice President, Real Estate                       210,000
</TABLE>