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

§ 165.835 Security Zone; Port of Mobile, Mobile Ship Channel, Mobile, AL. ( a ) *Definition.* As used in this section— *Cruise ship* means a passenger vessel over 100 gross tons, carrying more than 12 passengers for hire, making a voyage lasting more than 24 hours any part of which is on the high seas, and for which passengers are embarked or disembarked in the United States or its territories. This definition covers passenger vessels that must comply with 33 CFR parts 120 and 128.
( b ) *Location.* The following areas are security zones: all waters of the Port of Mobile and Mobile Ship Channel— ( 1 ) Within 100 yards of a cruise ship that is transiting shoreward of the Mobile Sea Buoy (located in approximate position 28°07′50′′ N, 88°04′12′′ W; NAD 83), and
( 2 ) Within 25 yards of a cruise ship that is moored shoreward of the Mobile Sea Buoy.
( c ) *Periods of enforcement.* This rule will only be enforced when a cruise ship is transiting the Mobile Ship Channel shoreward of the Mobile Sea Buoy, while transiting in the Port of Mobile, or while moored in the Port of Mobile. The Captain of the Port Mobile or a designated representative would inform the public through broadcast notice to mariners of the enforcement periods for the security zone.
( d ) *Regulations.* ( 1 ) Under § 165.33 of this part, entry into a security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Mobile or a designated representative.
( 2 ) While a cruise ship is transiting on the Mobile Ship Channel shoreward of the Mobile Sea Buoy, and while transiting in the Port of Mobile, all persons and vessels are prohibited from entering within 100 yards of a cruise ship.
( 3 ) While a cruise ship is moored in the Port of Mobile, all persons and vessels are prohibited from entering within 25 yards of a cruise ship.
( 4 ) Persons or vessels that desire to enter into the security zone for the purpose of passing or overtaking a cruise ship that is in transit on the Mobile Ship Channel or in the Port of Mobile must contact the on-scene Coast Guard representative, request permission to conduct such action, and receive authorization from the on-scene Coast Guard representative prior to initiating such action. The on-scene Coast Guard representative may be contacted on VHF-FM channel 16.
( 5 ) All persons and vessels authorized to enter into this security zone must obey any direction or order of the Captain of the Port or designated representative. The Captain of the Port Mobile may be contacted by telephone at (251) 441-5976. The on-scene Coast Guard representative may be contacted on VHF-FM channel 16.
( 6 ) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Mobile and designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel. On-scene Coast Guard patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard.
[COTP Mobile-04-057, 70 FR 20813, Apr. 22, 2005]
§ 20.705 Failure to appear. The ALJ may enter a default under § 20.310 against a respondent threatening to fail, or having failed, to appear at a hearing unless,— ( a ) Before the time for the hearing, the respondent shows good cause why neither the respondent nor his or her representative can appear; or,
( b ) 30 days or less after an order to show good cause, the respondent shows good cause for his or her failure to appear.
§ 147.1108 Platform EDITH safety zone. ( a ) *Description:* The area within a line 500 meters from each point on the structure's outer edge. The position of the center of the structure is 33°-35′-45′′ N. 118°-08′-27′′ W.
( b ) *Regulations:* No vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone except for the following: ( 1 ) An attending vessel,
( 2 ) a vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing, or
( 3 ) a vessel authorized by the Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[CCGD 11-79-02, 47 FR 39679, Sept. 9, 1982; 48 FR 33263, July 21, 1983]
§ 143.15 Lights and warning devices. ( a ) OCS facilities must meet the lights and warning devices requirements under part 67 of this chapter concerning aids to navigation on artificial islands and fixed structures.
( b ) Vessels, including attending vessels but excluding MODUs under paragraph (a) of this section, must meet the lights and warning devices requirements under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 or under local rules provided for in Rule 1 of those Regulations.
[CGD 78-160, 47 FR 9382, Mar. 4, 1982, as amended by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35530, June 30, 1998]
Case No. Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Moore/Louis

JORGE MONTEAGUDO ALBURQUERQUE, 

 Plaintiff,

vs.

THE DE MOYA GROUP, INC.,

A Florida Profit Corporation,

 Defendant.

________________________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff, JORGE MONTEAGUDO ALBURQUERQUE, by and through the undersigned counsel 

and in agreement with THE DE MOYA GROUP, INC, hereby respectfully notifies the Court that 

the parties have reached a settlement of all claims in this case. The parties are in the process of 

finalizing the agreement and preparing the dismissal documents, which will be filed with the Court 

upon completion. 

Dated: October 21, 2024. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Nathaly Saavedra

Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 118315

Email: nathaly@peregonza.com

Juan J. Perez, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 115784

Email: juan@peregonza.com

PEREGONZA THE ATTORNEYS, PLLC 

5201 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 290

Miami, FL 33126

Tel. (786) 650-0202

Fax. (786) 650-0200 

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2024 Page 1 of 3
Case No. Page 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 22, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document 

is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service 

List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by 

CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized 

to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.

/s/ Nathaly Saavedra

Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. 

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2024 Page 2 of 3
Case No. Page 3

SERVICE LIST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case No. 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Moore/Louis

Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 118315

Email: nathaly@peregonza.com

Juan J. Perez, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 115784

Email: juan@peregonza.com

PEREGONZA THE ATTORNEYS, PLLC

5201 Blue Lagoon Drive,

Suite 290, 

Miami, FL 33126

Tel. (786) 650-0202

Fax. (786) 650-0200

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Method of Service: CM/ECF notice

Reginald J. Clyne, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 654302

reginald.clyne@qpwblaw.com

Chanelle Artiles, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 10006402

chanelle.artiles@qpwblaw.com

Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A.

9300 South Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor

Miami, Florida 33156

Telephone: 305-670-1101

Attorneys for Defendant

Method of Service: CM/ECF notice

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/22/2024 Page 3 of 3
§ 323.6 Special policies and procedures. ( a ) The Secretary of the Army has delegated to the Chief of Engineers the authority to issue or deny section 404 permits. The district engineer will review applications for permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States in accordance with guidelines promulgated by the Administrator, EPA, under authority of section 404(b)(1) of the CWA. (see 40 CFR part 230.) Subject to consideration of any economic impact on navigation and anchorage pursuant to section 404(b)(2), a permit will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized by such a permit would not comply with the 404(b)(1) guidelines. If the district engineer determines that the proposed discharge would comply with the 404(b)(1) guidelines, he will grant the permit unless issuance would be contrary to the public interest.
( b ) The Corps will not issue a permit where the regional administrator of EPA has notified the district engineer and applicant in writing pursuant to 40 CFR 231.3(a)(1) that he intends to issue a public notice of a proposed determination to prohibit or withdraw the specification, or to deny, restrict or withdraw the use for specification, of any defined area as a disposal site in accordance with section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act. However the Corps will continue to complete the administrative processing of the application while the section 404(c) procedures are underway including completion of final coordination with EPA under 33 CFR part 325.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6195

ABDU

- SALIM GOULD, a/k/a Salimabdu Gould , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. TODD E. ISHEE, Commissioner, Director of Department of Public Safety , Respondent

- Appellee

.

No. 22

- 6255

ABDU

- SALIM GOULD, a/k/a Salimabdu Gould , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. TODD E. ISHEE, Commissioner, Director of Department of Public Safety , Respondent

- Appellee.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:20

- hc

- 02176

- FL )

Submitted : July 2 1 , 2022 Decided: July 26, 2022 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6255 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/26/2022 Pg: 1 of 32 Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and RUSHING , Circuit Judge s
.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Abdu

- Salim Gould, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6255 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/26/2022 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM:
Abdu

- Salim Gould se eks to appeal the district court’s order s: (1) denying his

mot ion for entry of default, for default judgment, for summary judgment, and for a stay or injunction pending discovery (No. 22

- 6195); and (2) dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as a duplicative petition (No. 22

- 6255)

. The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 225 3(c)(2). When , as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gould has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gould’s motion for a default judgment, deny a certificate of appealability , and dismiss the appeal s . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6255 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/26/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-73,761-32

IN RE HELEN TYNE MAYFIELD, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NOS. 07-05453-CFR-361, 07-05454-CFR-361, 

07-05455-CFR-361, and 07-05456-CFR-361 

IN THE 361 DISTRICT COURT ST

FROM BRAZOS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. She contends, among other things, that she filed applications for writs of

habeas corpus in the 361 District Court of Brazos County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and st

that the applications have not yet been forwarded to this Court.

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the District Clerk of Brazos

County, is ordered to file a response, which may be made by submitting the record on such habeas

corpus applications, submitting a copy of a timely filed order which designates issues to be
2

investigated (see McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that

Relator has not filed any applications for a writ of habeas corpus in Brazos County since the writ

applications filed on October 6, 2017. Should the response include an order designating issues,

proof of the date the district attorney’s office was served with the habeas applications and that the

180-day time frame set out in TEX.R.APP.P. 73.4(b)(5) has not expired shall also be submitted with

the response. This application for leave to file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abeyance until

Respondent has submitted the appropriate response. Such response shall be submitted within 30

days of the date of this order.

Filed: February 20, 2019

Do not publish
DDZ Family Enterprises LLC

ADP Payroll

Non-ADP 

Payroll

Total 

Payroll

Average 

Monthly 

Payroll ADP Payroll

Non-ADP 

Payroll

Total 

Payroll

Average 

Monthly 

Payroll ADP Payroll

Non-ADP 

Payroll Total Payroll

Average 

Monthly 

Payroll

David Johnson $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1, 2

Shantalette Powell $0 $100 $100 $8 $0 $240 $240 $39 $0 $490 $490 $41 1, 2

Daejah Johnson $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200 $200 $17 1, 2

Zanise Johnson $0 $251 $251 $21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1, 2

Alexander Stoveall $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1, 2

Payroll Related $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1, 5

Cash Withdrawal $0 $6,086 $6,086 $507 $0 $4,790 $4,790 $781 $0 $48,640 $48,640 $4,053 5

Total $0 $6,437 $6,437 $536 $0 $5,030 $5,030 $821 $0 $49,330 $49,330 $4,111

Year

PPP 

Application

Bank 

Records Difference

Percent 

Difference

EIDL 

Application

PPP 

Application

State / 

ADP / 

Bank 

Records

2019 $57,378 $536 $56,842 10597% 7 5 1

1/1/2020 - 7/4/2020 $57,378 $821 $56,557 6893% 7 5 1

2020 $57,378 $4,111 $53,267 1296% 7 5 1

Note Source

1 ADP

2 Florida Department of Revenue

3 Paid Checks

4 No Records

5 Bank Records

Potential Payroll

Potential Employee Note

Reported vs Potential Average Monthly Payroll

2019 1/1/2020 - 7/4/2020 2020

Reported vs Potential 

No of Employees

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 204-32 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2023 Page 1 of 1
§ 336.0 General. Since the jurisdiction of the CWA extends to all waters of the U.S., including the territorial sea, and the jurisdiction of the ODA extends over ocean waters including the territorial sea, the following rules are established to assure appropriate regulation of discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. and ocean waters. ( a ) The disposal into ocean waters, including the territorial sea, of dredged material excavated or dredged from navigable waters of the U.S. will be evaluated by the Corps in accordance with the ODA.
( b ) In those cases where the district engineer determines that the discharge of dredged material into the territorial sea would be for the primary purpose of fill, such as the use of dredged material for beach nourishment, island creation, or construction of underwater berms, the discharge will be evaluated under section 404 of the CWA.
( c ) For those cases where the district engineer determines that the materials proposed for discharge in the territorial sea would not be adequately evaluated under the section 404(b)(1) guidelines of the CWA, he may evaluate that material under the ODA.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JESUS JASSO NAVAR

R O, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-71291 Age n c y No. A077-970-851 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d M arc h 10, 2014 ** B e fore : PR EGER SON, LEAVY, a n d M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s . Je sus Ja s so Na

va rro, a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a p pe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de nia l of c anc e l lation of re m ova l a s a m atte r of disc re tion. 

# FIL ED MAR 14 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 2 - 7 1 2 9 1Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w. In his ope ning brie f, Nava rro fa i ls to a ddre ss, a

n d the re fore ha s wa i ve d a ny c ha lle nge to, the B IA’ s re m ova bility de te rm inat ion. Se e Martine z-Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th C ir. 1996) (holding issue s tha t a re not spe c ific a lly ra ise d a nd a rgue d in a p a rty ’ s ope ning brie f are wa ive d). W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the IJ’ s de n ia l of c anc e lla tion of re m ova l in the e xe rc i se of disc re tion. Se e Be rmude z v . Holde r , 586 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). M ore o ve r, Ja sso Na va rro’ s c onte ntion tha

t he fe e ls the Unite d Stat e s is thebe s t pla c e for him is not a suffic i e ntly c olora

ble c onstitutiona

l c la im or que stion of la

w to trigge r our jurisdic tion. Se e Me nde z-C astro v . Muk

ase y , 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ To be c olora ble in this c onte x t, the viola tion ne e d not be substa

ntia l, but thec la im

m ust ha ve som e possibleva lidity . ” (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 2 - 7 1 2 9 1 2
**Exhibit 31(b)1**

**ALABAMA POWER COMPANY**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 

I, Charles D. McCrary, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Alabama Power Company;

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; 

4.

The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  November 6, 2007

/s/Charles D. McCrary

Charles D. McCrary

President and Chief Executive Officer
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 480

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to the treatment

of certain personal care services under the unemployment tax.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 2, 1999

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect

to the treatment of certain personal care services under

the unemployment tax.

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

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PERSONAL CARE

4 SERVICES UNDER UNEMPLOYMENT TAX.

5 (a) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PERSONAL CARE

6 SERVICES.—Subsection (c) of section 3306 of such Code

7 is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph (20),

8 by striking the period at the end of paragraph (21) and

9 inserting ‘‘; or’’, and by adding at the end thereof the fol10 lowing new paragraph:
2

•HR 480 IH

1 ‘‘(22) services performed by an individual dur2 ing any period in providing personal attendance,

3 companionship, or household care services for any

4 individual if—

5 ‘‘(A) such services are performed in the

6 residence of such individual,

7 ‘‘(B) during such period, the individual

8 performing such services normally performs

9 such services for at least 5 individuals in their

10 residences, and

11 ‘‘(C) such services are not performed by

12 such individual while in the employ of another

13 person engaged in the trade or business of pro14 viding such services.’’

15 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (2) of

16 section 3306(c) of such Code is amended by inserting

17 ‘‘(not described in paragraph (22))’’ after ‘‘domestic serv18 ice’’ the first place it appears.

19 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

20 this section shall apply to remuneration paid in calendar

21 quarters ending after the date of the enactment of this

22 Act.

Æ