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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION 

CASE NO. 22-81294-CIV-CANNON 

DONALD J. TRUMP, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

 / 

 

CERTIFICATION OF HARRIS FISCHMAN 

 Harris Fischman, Esquire, pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing the Admission, 

Practice, Peer Review, and Discipline of Attorneys, hereby certifies that: (1) I have studied the 

Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida; (2) I am a member in 

good standing of the bars of the State of New York and the U.S. District Court for the Southern 

District of New York, as well as several other federal bars; and (3) I have not filed three or more 

motions for pro hac vice admission in this District within the last 365 days. 

 

 /s/ Harris Fischman 

 Harris Fischman 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 44-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 157
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 157 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

§ 157.12f Workshop functional test requirements. ( a ) Each oil content meter and each control section of a monitoring system must be subjected to a functional test on a suitable test bench prior to delivery. The detailed program for a functional test of such equipment must be developed by the manufacturer, taking into account the features and functions of the specific design of equipment. A completed workshop certificate including the delivery test protocol must be received with each unit delivered.
( b ) A functional test conducted on an oil content meter must include the following operations: ( 1 ) A check of flow rate, pressure drop, or an equivalent parameter as appropriate;
( 2 ) A check of all alarm functions built into the meter;
( 3 ) A check of all switching functions interconnecting with other parts of the system; and
( 4 ) A check for correct reading at several ppm values on all measurement scales when operated on an oil appropriate for the application of the oil content meter or by an equivalent method.
( c ) A functional check conducted on a control section of a monitoring system must include the following operations: ( 1 ) A check of all alarm functions;
( 2 ) A check of the correct function of the signal processor and the recording equipment when simulated input signals of ppm, flow rate, and speed are varied;
( 3 ) A check that the alarm is activated when the input signals are varied to exceed the discharge limits contained in § 157.37(a)(3) and (4);
( 4 ) A check that a signal is given to the overboard discharge control when alarm conditions are reached; and
( 5 ) A check that the alarm is activated when each one of the input signals is varied to exceed the capacity of the system.
[USCG-2004-18939, 74 FR 3379, Jan. 16, 2009]
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Southern District of Florida

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

22-cv-61632

ARCHER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GROUP,

ARCHER GROWTH FUND,

HDR MANAGEMENT LLC, AND

SILVERMOON GROUP, LLC

ARCHER GROWTH FUND

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

GREGORY R. BOCKIN

1617 JOHN F. KENNEDY BLVD., SUITE 520

PHILADELPHIA, PA. 19103

Case 0:22-cv-61632-AHS Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

u Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

22-cv-61632

0.00

Case 0:22-cv-61632-AHS Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 2 of 2
#### § 230.8 Emergency actions.

In responding to emergency situations to prevent or reduce imminent risk of life, health, property, or severe economic losses, district commanders may proceed without the specific documentation and procedural requirements of other sections of this regulation. District commanders shall consider the probable environmental consequences in determining appropriate emergency actions and when requesting approval to proceed on emergency actions, will describe proposed NEPA documentation or reasons for exclusion from documentation. NEPA documentation should be accomplished prior to initiation of emergency work if time constraints render this practicable. Such documentation may also be accomplished after the completion of emergency work, if appropriate. Emergency actions include Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies Activities pursuant to Pub. L. 84-99, as amended, and projects constructed under sections 3 of the River and Harbor Act of 1945 or 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 of the Continuing Authorities Program. When possible, emergency actions considered major in scope with potentially significant environmental impacts shall be referred through the division commanders to HQUSACE (CECW-RE) for consultation with CEQ about NEPA arrangements.
Exhibit 10.86(b)

 



 

Notice of [YEAR] Restricted Stock Unit Award Granted Under the 
 Amended and Restated Tree.com, Inc. 2008 Stock and Annual Incentive Plan

(the “2008 Amended Plan”)

 

Important Note: You must login to your account at www.benefitaccess.com to obtain other important information concerning this award, including a copy of the 2008 Amended Plan and the Terms and Conditions for 2012 Restricted Stock Unit Awards (the “Terms and Conditions”).

 

	
Award   Recipient:
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
[YEAR]   Restricted Stock Unit Award:
    	
 
    	
xxxxx   restricted stock units (“RSUs”) granted under the 2008 Amended Plan.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Award   Date:
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Vesting   Schedule:
    	
 
    	
Your   RSUs shall, subject to the provisions of the 2008 Amended Plan and the Terms   and Conditions, vest and no longer be subject to any restriction as of the   dates set forth below: 

 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Vesting Date
    	
 
    	
Percentage of Total 
   Award Vesting
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
33.3316
    	
%
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
33.3342
    	
%
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
33.3342
    	
%
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Impact   of a Termination of Employment:
    	
 
    	
Except   as otherwise provided in the 2008 Amended Plan or in the attached Terms and   Conditions, or any prior employment agreement, all of your unvested RSUs will   be forfeited and canceled in their entirety upon a Termination of Employment.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Terms   and Conditions:
    	
 
    	
Capitalized   terms used (but not defined) in this Award Notice shall have the meanings set   forth in the 2008 Amended Plan.

 

Your   RSUs are subject to the Terms and   Conditions and to the 2008 Amended Plan, both of which are posted on   www.benefitaccess.com. Additional copies of these documents are also   available on the MyEquity page of the Company intranet at   http://mytreehouse/EmployeeFocus/Pages/MyEquity.aspx or upon request from   your Human Resources Department.
    


 

1
§ 155.215 Discharge removal equipment for inland oil barges. ( a ) During cargo transfer operations, inland oil barges must have appropriate equipment and supplies ready for immediate use to control and remove on-deck oil cargo spills of at least one barrel.
( b ) The equipment and supplies must include— ( 1 ) Sorbents;
( 2 ) Non-sparking hand scoops, shovels, and buckets;
( 3 ) Containers suitable for holding recovered waste;
( 4 ) Emulsifiers for deck cleaning; and
( 5 ) Protective clothing.
( c ) The oil barge owner or operator may rely on equipment available at the transfer facility receiving from or discharging to the barge, provided the barge owner or operator has prearranged for the use of the equipment by contract or other means approved by the Coast Guard.
[CGD 90-068, 58 FR 67996, Dec. 22, 1993, as amended by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35531, June 30, 1998]
Editorial Note on Part 148
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

§ 148.420 When may the Commandant (CG-5P) suspend or prohibit site evaluation or pre-construction testing? ( a ) The Commandant (CG-5P) may order, either in writing or orally, with written confirmation, the prohibition or immediate suspension of any activity related to site evaluation or pre-construction testing when the activity threatens to harm: ( 1 ) Human life;
( 2 ) Biota;
( 3 ) Property;
( 4 ) Cultural resources;
( 5 ) Any valuable mineral deposits; or
( 6 ) The environment.
( b ) The Commandant (CG-5P) will consult with the applicant on measures to remove the cause for suspension.
( c ) The Commandant (CG-5P) may lift a suspension after the applicant assures the Commandant (CG-5P) that the activity will no longer cause the threat on which the suspension was based.
[USCG-1998-3884, 71 FR 57651, Sept. 29, 2006, as amended by USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39177, July 1, 2013]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40043

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OSCAR RODRIGUEZ-ALBIR, also known as Oscar Rodriguez-Elvir,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:11-CR-222-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Oscar Rodriguez-Albir appeals the district court’s reimposition of a $100 

special assessment after the court revoked his supervised release. A review of 

the revocation hearing transcript reveals that the district court made no 

findings as to whether Rodriguez-Albir satisfied the special assessment 

imposed at his original sentencing and did not orally reimpose the special 

assessment. Thus, as the Government concedes, there is a conflict between the 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 14, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40043 Document: 00513154984 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2015
No. 15-40043

2

oral pronouncement and the written judgment, and the oral pronouncement

controls. See United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Accordingly, we VACATE IN PART and REMAND for the district court to 

delete the reimposition of the $100 special assessment from the written 

judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106.

 Case: 15-40043 Document: 00513154984 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2015
**1997-  agricultural_exports_summary_12.02.97agricultural_exports_summary_08.28.97agricultural_exports_summary_05.29.97agricultural_exports_summary_02.24.97agricultural_exports_12.08.97_REVISED_12.15.97agricultural_exports_09.09.97agricultural_exports_06.10.97agricultural_exports_03.12.97

**
February 25, 2015

Mr. David W. Mansen

10736 Vista Heights Blvd.

Fort Worth, TX 76180

Dear Mr. Mansen:

This is in response to your September 29, 2014, letter sent to the docket (No. FAA-2014-

0830) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of RD Group for an 

exemption from part 21; §§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103, 91.109, 

91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 

91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if 

granted, would allow RD Group to commercially operate its small unmanned aircraft systems 

(sUAS) to perform aerial photography and inspection services.

By email dated January 26, 2015, which posted to the docket on January 28, the FAA sent

you a request for additional information asking you (in part) to:

• Describe the aircraft make(s) and model(s) for the proposed UAS operation. The

description(s) should include the following: size, maximum weight (including payload), and 

aircraft type (i.e. - fixed-wing,rotorcraft, lighter-than-air).

To date, the FAA has not received the required information to continue processing your 

petition. Because your petition lacks sufficient information to proceed, the FAA has closed 

your exemption request. Should you wish to provide the additional information, please 

resubmit your petition for exemption to the public docket.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda D. Courtney

Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-22671-ALTONAGA/TORRES

DELIO BATISTA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AVANT ASSURANCE INC., 

REINIER CORTES, AND 

ANDREA GONZALEZ 

QUINTERO,

Defendants.

______________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ TO BRING ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT

INTO THE COURTROOM FOR USE DURING EACH DAY OF TRIAL

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Allow Electric 

Equipment in the Courtroom for Use During Each Day of Trial, and the Court having considered 

the Motion and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as that the Motion is GRANTED: 

The following persons are permitted to bring the designated electronic equipment into the 

Courtroom for each day of the trial, which commences on July 10, 2023:

Owner Electronic Equipment

Brian H. Pollock, Esq. Cellular Phone w/charging cord

Laptop w/ charging cord

Toussaint Cummings, Esq. Cellular Phone w/charging cord

Laptop w/ charging cord

Delio Batista Cellular Phone w/charging cord

Carlos Lopez Cellular Phone w/charging cord

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 86-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

Mariana Lopez Cellular Phone w/charging cord

Rafaela Valiente Cellular Phone w/charging cord

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida this ____ day of July, 2023.

_________________________________________

CECILIA M. ALTONAGA

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 86-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2023 Page 2 of 2
§ 825.217 Key employee, general rule. ( a ) A *key employee* is a salaried FMLA-eligible employee who is among the highest paid 10 percent of all the employees employed by the employer within 75 miles of the employee's worksite.
( b ) The term *salaried* means paid on a salary basis, as defined in 29 CFR 541.602. This is the Department of Labor regulation defining employees who may qualify as exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA as executive, administrative, professional, and computer employees.
( c ) A key employee must be among the highest paid 10 percent of all the employees—both salaried and non-salaried, eligible and ineligible—who are employed by the employer within 75 miles of the worksite. ( 1 ) In determining which employees are among the highest paid 10 percent, year-to-date earnings are divided by weeks worked by the employee (including weeks in which paid leave was taken). Earnings include wages, premium pay, incentive pay, and non-discretionary and discretionary bonuses. Earnings do not include incentives whose value is determined at some future date, e.g., stock options, or benefits or perquisites.
( 2 ) The determination of whether a salaried employee is among the highest paid 10 percent shall be made at the time the employee gives notice of the need for leave. No more than 10 percent of the employer's employees within 75 miles of the worksite may be key employees.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7302

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KORD JOHNSON, a/k/a John P. Jones, a/k/a Kent J. Coppage, a/k/a Morris Maslia, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-96-113, CA-97-908) Submitted: January 5, 1999 Decided: February 18, 1999Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kord Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Philip Rosenberg, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Kord Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Johnson , Nos. CR-96- 113, CA-97-908 (E.D. Va. July 30, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   1-MO
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              305
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,305
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,305)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,305)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,305)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00


</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 165
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 165 appear by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36328, 36329, July 2, 2007 and by USCG-2018-1049, 84 FR 7813, Mar. 5, 2019.

§ 165.141 Safety Zone: Sunken vessel EMPIRE KNIGHT, Boon Island, ME. ( a ) *Location.* The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the Atlantic Ocean within a 1,000 yard radius of the stern section of the sunken vessel EMPIRE KNIGHT, in approximate position 43°06′19′′ N, 70°27′09′′ W, (NAD 1983) and extending from the water's surface to the seabed floor.
( b ) *Effective date.* This section is effective on August 23, 1996, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
( c ) *Regulations.* ( 1 ) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23 apply.
( 2 ) All vessels and persons are prohibited from anchoring, diving, dredging, dumping, fishing, trawling, laying cable, or conducting salvage operations in this zone except as authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine. Innocent transit through the area within the safety zone is not affected by this regulation and does not require the authorization of the Captain of the Port.
( 3 ) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or the designated on scene patrol personnel. U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel via siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
[CGD 01-95-141, 61 FR 60032, Nov. 26, 1996]
Dear Colleagues,

ACL is pleased to announce the release of Frequently Asked Questions on Independent Living

Services for Children and Youth with Disabilities (Youth Services FAQ), which was developed 

in response to questions from grantees about the provisions for transitions of youth included in 

the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA). 

WIOA added new “core services” to the missions of centers for independent living that include 

the transition of youth and young adults with disabilities to postsecondary life once they are no 

longer receiving a secondary education. WIOA defines youth with a disability to mean “an 

individual with a disability who is not younger than 14 years of age; and is not older than 24 

years of age.” ACL adopted this definition in the final IL regulation.

The Youth Services FAQ is intended to help explain this new core service and provide 

clarification to grantees about reporting of services provided to youth, which may differ 

depending on their eligibility for the new services or for other independent living services. We 

hope it will help centers for independent living design and provide these new core services. If 

you have specific questions regarding the implementation or reporting of youth services please 

contact the ILA project officer for your state. 

Thank you, 

Bob Williams

Director, Independent Living Administration