alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Original

No. 7011

#### John Mitchell v. Sullivan County Superior Court

March 31, 1976

John Mitchell, by brief, pro se.

*Warren B. Rudman,*attorney general, and *Thomas D. Rath,*assistant attorney general, by brief, for the defendant.

Per curiam.

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order requiring the Sullivan County Superior Court to turn over to the defendant certain allegedly exculpatory information and evidence so that he may “perfect” another appeal.

The defendant was convicted of second degree murder following a jury trial. His motion to set aside the verdict was denied and the case was appealed to the supreme court. We upheld the conviction. *State v. Mitchell,*113 N.H. 542, 311 A.2d 134 (1973). Thereafter, his petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court was denied. 415 U.S. 958 (1974). Subsequently, he brought a petition for a writ of mandamus in the United States District Court, asking it to order this court to hold a hearing and to furnish the relief he now seeks. The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice on the ground that since the plaintiff had elected to proceed in the United States Supreme Court by certiorari (28 U.S.C. 1257), that Court and not the district court had jurisdiction of all matters of relief pertaining to the defendant’s case.

It is elementary that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, granted only when the plaintiff has a dear and apparent right to relief. *Segre v. Ring,*103 N.H. 278, 170 A.2d 265 (1961); *Siegel v. State,*111 N.H. 395, 285 A.2d 803 (1971). That situation does not exist here. The plaintiff “admits and agrees” that he was repre*142sented by “adequate and competent” counsel, but he disagrees with certain conclusions drawn and positions taken by counsel. An examination of these and other claims made by the plaintiff convinces us that they are without merit. Since he has no clear and apparent right to relief as required by our decisions, the order is

*Petition denied.*
§ 25.117 Proof of amount claimed for personal injury or death. The following evidence must be presented when appropriate: ( a ) Itemized medical, hospital, and burial bills.
( b ) A written report by the attending physician including: ( 1 ) The nature and extent of the injury and the treatment,
( 2 ) The necessity and reasonableness of the various medical expenses incurred,
( 3 ) Duration of time injuries prevented or limited employment,
( 4 ) Past, present, and future limitations on employment,
( 5 ) Duration and extent of pain and suffering and of any disability or physical disfigurement,
( 6 ) A current prognosis,
( 7 ) Any anticipated medical expenses, and
( 8 ) Any past medical history of the claimant relevant to the particular injury alleged. Note:
An examination by an independent medical facility or physician may be required to provide independent medical evidence against which to evaluate the written report of the claimant's physician. The settlement authority determines the need for this examination, makes mutually convenient arrangements for such an examination, and bears the costs thereof.
( c ) All hospital records or other medical documents from either this injury or any relevant past injury.
( d ) If the claimant is employed, a written statement by the claimant's employer certifying the claimant's: ( 1 ) Age,
( 2 ) Occupation,
( 3 ) Hours of employment,
( 4 ) Hourly rate of pay or weekly salary,
( 5 ) Time lost from work as a result of the incident, and
( 6 ) Claimant's actual period of employment, full-time or part-time, and any effect of the injury upon such employment to support claims for lost earnings.
( e ) If the claimant is self-employed, written statements, or other evidence showing: ( 1 ) The amount of earnings actually lost, and
( 2 ) The Federal tax return if filed for the three previous years.
( f ) If the claim arises out of injuries to a person providing services to the claimant, statement of the cost necessarily incurred to replace the services to which claimant is entitled under law.
ADP Records and PPP Applications

COMPANY

LOAN 

DISBURSEMENT

DATE

DATE ADP ACCOUNT 

CREATED

AC

REPRE

One Solution Group LLC 6/1/2020 6/24/2020 MAX SAIClear Shot Entertainment LLC 6/16/2020 6/23/2020 MAX SAIUnfold Perception LLC 6/22/2020 6/30/2020 MAX SAIJream Vision TV LLC 2/17/2021 3/17/2021 JOFF PHSunrise City Construction Development LLC 2/17/2021 3/17/2021 JOFF PHCinda Foundation Inc. 4/9/2021 4/19/2021 JOFF PHDDZ Family Enterprises LLC 2/23/2021 3/15/2021 JOFF PHUnfold Perception LLC 2/23/2021 5/6/2021 JOFF PH

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 204-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2023 Page
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-CV-61029-RUIZ/STRAUSS 

LATOYA RATLIEFF, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA, et al., 

Defendants. 

 / 

DISCOVERY ORDER 

THIS CAUSE came before the Court for a discovery hearing on March 10, 2023, upon 

Plaintiff’s Ore Tenus Motion to Compel better responses to Plaintiff’s First Request for Admission

and Plaintiff’s First Request for Production (“the Motion”). The District Court has referred all 

discovery matters to me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. [DE 27]. For the reasons stated on the record 

at the hearing, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: 

1. The Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART as set forth herein. 

2. As to request for admission (“RFA”) 1 and 2, the Motion is denied as moot. 

3. As to request for production (“RFP”) 3, 12, 15,1 23, 24, 26, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 45, 

the Motion is granted-in-part to the extent that Defendant, the City of Fort 

Lauderdale, shall produce any remaining documents responsive to the above RFPs 

1 As to RFP 15, Defendant must ascertain whether it can (or already has) produced all of the body 

word camera (“BWC”) footage from Eliezer Ramos, who is also a Defendant in this case, that is 

responsive to the RFP. If Defendant cannot obtain (or has already produced) all of the responsive 

footage from Ramos’s BWC, Defendant must provide the “audit report” (or substantially similar 

report) regarding Ramos’s BWC footage, to the extent an audit report exists. 

Case 0:22-cv-61029-RAR Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2023 Page 1 of 2
2 

by March 21, 2023.

2

 For any responsive documents Defendant either does not 

produce or produces with redactions, Defendant must provide a privilege log 

specifying the nature of the information withheld or redacted and the basis for its 

assertion of privilege. Furthermore, if Defendant determines that it does not have 

the information requested, it must make a certification consistent with Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 26(g). 

4. As to RFP 17, the Motion is denied as moot. 

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 10th day of March 2023. 

 

 

2

 Although Plaintiff has challenged Defendant’s assertion of privilege in its responses to the RFPs, 

see [DE 80 at 4-15], the Court declines to decide the scope of any applicable privilege at this time. 

The Court may consider the applicability and scope of Defendant’s claims of privilege following 

Defendant’s production on March 21, 2023. However, the parties must meet and confer regarding 

any disputes over redactions or claims of privilege before presenting those disputes to the Court. 

Any such meet and confer must address redactions or assertions of privilege regarding each 

specific document whose redaction or withholding is in dispute, keeping in mind the specific needs 

of case. 

Case 0:22-cv-61029-RAR Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2023 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         321,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               57,513,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 18,051,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            86,890,000
<PP&E>                                       3,740,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              95,447,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       54,797,000
<BONDS>                                      7,493,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       10,490,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,028,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,992,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                95,447,000
<SALES>                                     71,291,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            71,291,000
<CGS>                                       56,110,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               56,110,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,007,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             490,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                684,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   270,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            414,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   414,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42
        

</TABLE>
§ 156.125 Discharge cleanup. ( a ) Each person conducting the transfer operation shall stop the transfer operation whenever oil or hazardous material from any source is discharged: ( 1 ) In the transfer operation work area; or
( 2 ) Into the water or upon the adjoining shoreline in the transfer area.
( b ) Except as permitted under paragraph (c) of this section, no person may resume the transfer operation after it has been stopped under paragraph (a) of this section, unless: ( 1 ) Oil or hazardous material discharged in the transfer operation work area is cleaned up; and
( 2 ) Oil or hazardous material discharged into the water or upon the adjoining shoreline is cleaned up, or is contained and being cleaned up.
( c ) The COTP may authorize resuming the transfer operation if it is deemed appropriate.
[CGD 75-124, 45 FR 7177, Jan. 31, 1980, as amended by CGD 86-034, 55 FR 36255, Sept. 4, 1990]
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

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

        In connection with the Quarterly Report of Aceto Corporation, a New York
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Douglas Roth, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

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


/s/ Douglas Roth
----------------
Douglas Roth
Chief Financial Officer
November 9, 2006
§ 155.5061 Alternative Training and Exercise Program. ( a ) Owners or operators of nontank vessels with an oil capacity of less than 250 barrels, in lieu of the training and exercise requirements of §§ 155.5055 and 155.5060, may meet an Alternative Training and Exercise Program that has been approved by the (CG-MER), Office of Marine Environmental Response Policy for meeting the requirements of this section.
( b ) Vessel owners or operators must make available to the Coast Guard, upon request, any information related to implementation of an approved Alternative Training and Exercise Program.
( c ) For approval of an Alternative Training and Exercise Program the vessel owners or operators must submit to the Commandant (CG-MER) for review and approval: The Alternative Training and Exercise Program and the following information to assess the adequacy of the proposed Alternative Training and Exercise Program— ( 1 ) A list of the vessels to which the Alternative Training and Exercise Program is intended to apply;
( 2 ) An explanation of how the Alternative Training and Exercise Program addresses the requirements of 33 CFR 155.1055(b) through (f) and 33 CFR 155.1060; and
( 3 ) An explanation of how vessel owners or operators must implement the Alternative Training and Exercise Program in its entirety, including performing verification of implementation.
( d ) Amendments to the Alternative Training and Exercise Program approved under this section may be initiated by the submitter of an Alternative Training and Exercise Program.
( e ) Approval of the Alternative Training and Exercise Program is required before a vessel may receive a nontank vessel response plan approval letter.
( f ) The Commandant (CG-MER) will examine each submission for compliance with this section and— ( 1 ) If the submission meets all the requirements, the Coast Guard will consider the training and exercise program requirements under this section to be satisfactory; or
( 2 ) If the Coast Guard determines that the submission does not meet all of the requirements, the submitter will be notified of the deficiencies. The submitter may then resubmit a revised request within the time period specified.
[USCG-1998-3417, 73 FR 80649, Dec. 31, 2008, as amended by USCG-2016-0498, 82 FR 35082, July 28, 2017]
EXHIBIT
32.01.


Certification
of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








I, Alex
Demitriev, Chief Executive Officer, and Principal Accounting Officer, of
Merilus, Inc., (the "Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of our knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the period December 31, 2008 of the Registrant, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"):





(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 results of operations of the
Registrant.





Dated:  April
10,
2009                                                        By:  /s/ Alex
Demitriev


Alex Demitriev


Chief Executive Officer and Principal
Accounting


Officer





* A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Merilus, Inc. and will be retained by Merilus, Inc.  and
furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
LETTER ON CHANGE IN CERTIFYING ACCOUNTANT

February 25, 2000


U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re:  Form 10-KSB Annual Report of NuPro Innovations Inc.

Gentlemen:

We have read the section titled  "Ratification of Independent  Auditor - Changes
in and  Disagreements  with Accountants on Accounting and Financial  Disclosure"
included in the Form 10-KSB Annual Report of NuPro  Innovations  Inc. filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  February  28,  2000,  and are in
agreement with the statements contained therein.

Yours very truly,

/s/ BDO Dunwoody LLP

CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

Per: Robert W. Babensee, C.A.
     Partner
§ 222.3 Clearances for power and communication lines over reservoirs. ( a ) *Purpose.* This regulation prescribes the minimum vertical clearances to be provided when relocating existing or constructing new power and communication lines over waters of reservoir projects.
( b ) *Applicability.* This regulation applies to all field operating agencies having Civil Works responsibilities.
( c ) *References.* ( 1 ) ER 1180-1-1 (Section 73).
( 2 ) National Electrical Safety Code (ANSI C2), available from IEEE Service Center, 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, N.J. 08854.
( d ) *Definitions* — ( 1 ) *Design high water level.* The design high water level above which clearances are to be provided shall be either: ( i ) The elevation of the envelope profile of the 50 year flood, or flood series, routed through the reservoir with a full conservation pool after 50 years of sedimentation, or
( ii ) the elevation of the top of the flood control pool, whichever is higher.
( 2 ) *Low point of line.* The low point of the line shall be the elevation of the lowest point of the line taking into consideration all factors including temperature, loading and length of spans as outlined in the National Electrical Safety Code.
( 3 ) *Minimum vertical clearance.* The minimum vertical clearance shall be the distance from the design high water lever (paragraph (d)(1) of this section) to the low point of the line (paragraph (d)(2) of this section).
( e ) *Required clearances.* Minimum vertical clearances for power and communication lines over reservoirs shall not be less than required by section 23, rule 232 of the latest revision of the National Electrical Safety Code (ANSI C2). ( 1 ) In general, minimum vertical clearances shall not be less than shown in Table 232-1, Item 7, of ANSI C2, even for reservoirs or areas not suitable for sailboating or where sailboating is prohibited.
( 2 ) If clearances not in accordance with Table 232-1 of ANSI C2 are proposed, justification for the clearances should be provided.
( f ) *Navigable waters.* For parts of reservoirs that are designated as navigable waters of the United States, greater clearances will be provided if so required. The clearances required over navigable waters are covered by 33 CFR 322.5(i)(2) and are not affected by this regulation.
[43 FR 14013, Apr. 4, 1978. Redesignated at 60 FR 19851, Apr. 21, 1995]
Aging and Disability Resource Centers Implementing the Affordable Care Act: 

Making it Easier for Individuals to Navigate Their Health and Long-Term Care through 

Person-Centered Systems of Information, Counseling and Access 

Evidence Based Care Transition Program 

State Agency: New York State Office for the Aging 

Name of ADRC and Healthcare Partners: 

Albany County NY Connects (ADRC), the Eddy Visiting Nurses Association, Albany Memorial 

and Samaritan Hospitals and Community Caregivers. 

Project Period: September 30, 2010 to September 30, 2012 

Contact: Gail Koser 

 518-473-8422 

gail.koser@ofa.state.ny.us

Evidence Based Care Transitions Model: Care Transitions InterventionSM

Project Summary: 

 The New York State Office for the Aging (NYSOFA) and Albany County NY Connects 

(ADRC) will expand an existing Evidenced-Based Care Transitions Intervention (CTI) that is 

currently only available to patients enrolled in one local health insurance plan. By strengthening 

existing relationships between NY Connects, the Eddy Visiting Nurses Association, Albany 

Memorial and Samaritan Hospitals and Community Caregivers, the partner agencies will 

continue to provide the CTI program and pair a CTI coach with a trained volunteer Community 

Supports Navigator (CSN) for 90 days. This enhanced “CTI-Plus” program will serve eligible 

older adults from Albany County who are being discharged from Albany Memorial and 

Samaritan Hospitals. 

Goal/Objectives: 

To decrease preventable re-hospitalizations and institutionalization among older adults within 90 

days of discharge by expanding capacity for NY Connects and its partners to provide the 

Evidenced-Based Care Transitions Intervention and fostering patient integration within the 

continuum of home and community based long term care. 

Objectives: 1) Increase availability of the CTI model to consumers and caregivers by expanding 

the targeted populations; 2) Develop a CTI-Plus model that combines CTI with the CSN 

program; 3) Increase capacity through provision of additional training in the CTI model; 4) 

Sustain the CTI-Plus program by working with providers and payors to identify ongoing 

reimbursement; and 5) Conduct an evaluation involving consumers and caregivers and to support 

sustainability and replication. 

Anticipated Outcomes/Results: 
The CTI-Plus program will serve 200 at-risk Albany County residents each year and at least one 

funder will continue to support the program at the close of the grant period. Products: An 

evaluation report and a final report with recommendations.
IIB

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4806

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 26, 2000

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 1710 Alabama

Avenue in Jasper, Alabama, as the ‘‘Carl Elliott Federal

Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 4806 RFS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The Federal building located at 1710 Alabama Ave3 nue in Jasper, Alabama, shall be known and designated

4 as the ‘‘Carl Elliott Federal Building’’.

5 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

6 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

7 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

8 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

9 a reference to the ‘‘Carl Elliott Federal Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives July 25, 2000.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.