alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 7359** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JAMES W. BAILEY, JR., a/k/a James W. “ Bill ” Bailey, Jr. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville
. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 1:11

- cr - 00010

- MR

- DLH

- 1 ; 1:14

- cv - 00310

- MR )

Submitted : February 23, 2017 Decided: February 28, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. James W. Bailey, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Bain

- Creed , Jonathan Henry Ferry , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Charlotte, North C arolina, Richard Lee Edwards, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Paul Bradford Taylor , Corey F. Ellis , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Asheville, North Carolina, for Appe llee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in thi s circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James W. Bailey, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appe alable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that t he motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bailey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealab ility and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32(f)


                                  CERTIFICATION

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


In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Savannah
Electric and Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, we, the
undersigned, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our
individual knowledge and belief, that:

     (1)  such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Savannah Electric and Power
          Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, which this statement
          accompanies, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
          Savannah Electric and Power Company for the quarter ended September
          30, 2004, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
          condition and results of operations of Savannah Electric and Power
          Company.



                                  /s/A. R. James
                                   A. R. James
                      President and Chief Executive Officer



                                /s/Kirby R. Willis
                                 Kirby R. Willis
                     Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
                                  and Treasurer

Date:  November 5, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                22,166
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                        330,411
<ALLOWANCES>                          10,290
<INVENTORY>                           39,387
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     420,827
<PP&E>                             1,877,563
<DEPRECIATION>                       955,483
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     1,369,453
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                294,344
<BONDS>                              248,993
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                              50,682
<OTHER-SE>                           654,736
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       1,369,453
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     750,193
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        692,657
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     3,916
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       53,620
<INCOME-TAX>                          21,260
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   32,360
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                          32,360
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0.65<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.63<F2>
<FN>
<F1>EARNINGS PER SHARE - BASIC (IN COMPLIANCE WITH SFAS 128)
<F2>EARNINGS PER SHARE - DILUTED (IN COMPLIANCE WITH SFAS 128)
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24

- 1300

ZACHARY KNOTTS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. KEITH WHITE, Esq.; HONORABLE THOMAS A. BEDELL , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Clarksburg

. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. ( 1:23

- cv - 00028

- TSK

- MJA )

Submitted : September 19, 2024 Decided: September 2 3 , 2024

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Zachary Knotts , Appellant Pro Se. Alex Scott Blevins , Mark Richard Simonton , OFFUTT SIMMONS SIMONTON, PLLC , Huntington , West Virginia; Dallas Floyd Kratzer, III , STEPTOE LLP , Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1300 Doc: 25 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Zachary Knotts appeals the district court’s order accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Knotts’ s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Knotts v. White , No. 1:23

- cv - 00028

- T S K

- MJA (N.D. W. Va. Feb. 15, 2024). 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.
AFFIRMED

* Knotts also seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider. Because Knotts did not file an amended notice of appeal after the entry of that order, it is not properly before us. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). USCA4 Appeal: 24-1300 Doc: 25 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 487

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that reimbursements

for costs of using passenger automobiles for charitable and other organizations are excluded from gross income.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 2, 1999

Mr. RAMSTAD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that reimbursements for costs of using passenger automobiles for charitable and other organizations are excluded from gross income.

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

3 SECTION 1. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTS TO CHARITABLE

4 VOLUNTEERS EXCLUDED FROM GROSS IN5 COME.

6 (A) IN GENERAL.—Part III of subchapter B of chap7 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended
2

HR 487 IH

1 by redesignating section 138 as section 139 and by insert2 ing after section 137 the following new section:

3 ‘‘SEC. 138. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTS TO CHARITABLE

4 VOLUNTEERS.

5 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Gross income of an individual

6 does not include amounts received, from an organization

7 described in section 170(c), as reimbursement of operating

8 expenses with respect to use of a passenger automobile

9 for the benefit of such organization. The preceding sen10 tence shall apply only to the extent that such reimburse11 ment would be deductible under section 274(d) (deter12 mined by applying the standard business mileage rate es13 tablished pursuant to section 274(d)) is the organization

14 were not so described and such individual were an em15 ployee of such organization.

16 ‘‘(b) NO DOUBLE BENEFIT.—Subsection (a) shall

17 not apply with respect to any expenses if the individual

18 claims a deduction or credit for such expenses under any

19 other provision of this title.

20 ‘‘(c) EXEMPTION FROM REPORTING REQUIRE21 MENTS.—Section 6041 shall not apply with respect to re22 imbursements excluded from income under subsection

23 (a).’’

24 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

25 for part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code
3

HR 487 IH

1 is amended by striking the item relating to section 138

2 and inserting the following new items:

‘‘Sec. 138. Reimbursement for use of passenger automobile for

charity.

‘‘Sec. 139. Cross reference to other Acts.’’

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

4 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the

5 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1

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





In connection with the Annual Report of Unity Wireless Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ilan Kenig, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



1.

the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 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/ Ilan Kenig

By: Ilan Kenig, President, Chief Executive Officer
March 31, 2006
EXHIBIT
32.2
   STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
 TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Worlds.com Inc. (the
"Company") for the three months ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Christopher Ryan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
that:
  * the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  *
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
   /s/ Christopher
Ryan
 Christopher
Ryan
 Chief
Financial Officer
 
 
 Date: May
20, 2009
 
  This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4779 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4779

 To allow certain donations of property and services to the Bureau of 
                                Prisons.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 2000

   Ms. McCarthy of Missouri (for herself, Mr. Moore, and Mr. Blunt) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To allow certain donations of property and services to the Bureau of 
                                Prisons.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Director of 
the Bureau of Prisons may accept donated property and services relating 
to the operation of the Prison Card Program from a not-for-profit 
entity which has operated such program in the past, despite the fact 
such not-for-profit entity furnishes services under contract to the 
Bureau relating to the operation of prerelease services, halfway 
houses, or other custodial facilities.
                                 <all>
```
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"ADR.gov","provider_url":"https:\/\/adr.gov","title":"Policy Statement","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Rtv414Prnb\"><a href=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/policy-statement\/\">Policy Statement<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/policy-statement\/embed\/#?secret=Rtv414Prnb\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Policy Statement” — ADR.gov\" data-secret=\"Rtv414Prnb\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A1816. TOMMY LEE BULLARD v. EDWARD PHILBIN.

In 2011, a jury found Tommy Lee Bullard guilty of malice murder and other

offenses, and the Supreme Court affirmed hisjudgment of conviction on appeal. See

Bullard v. State, 299 Ga. 695 (791 SE2d 808) (2016). In 2018, Bullard filed an

application for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking to challenge his 2011 convictions and

sentences. The trial court deniedBullard’s application, and he filed this direct appeal. 

We lack jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over “[a]ll habeas corpus cases”

and “[a]ll cases in which a sentence of death was imposed or could be imposed.” Ga.

Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (4), (8). A penalty of death may be imposed

for the crime of malice murder. See OCGA § 16-5-1 (a), (e) (1). Consequently, this

appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition. See Neal

v. State, 290 Ga. 563, 572 (722 SE2d 765) (2012) (Hunstein, C. J., concurring); see

also State v. Thornton, 253 Ga. 524, 524 (1) (322 SE2d 711) (1984) (directing this

Court to transfer “all casesin which either a sentence of death or of life imprisonment

has been imposed upon conviction of murder”), overruled in part on other grounds

asrecognized in Elliott v. State, 305 Ga. 179, 205 (III) (C) (i) (824 SE2d 265) (2019).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

April 30, 2019

04/30/2019
Submitted on record and briefs September 1,

reversed and remanded September 30, 1992

#### DAVID CHARLES KUTSCH, *Appellant, v.*Manfred (Fred) MAASS, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, *Respondent.*

(90-C-10741; CA A73776)

837 P2d 563

Noel Grefenson, Salem, filed the brief for appellant.

Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Rossman, Judge.

PER CURIAM

*381PER CURIAM

The state concedes that the trial court erred in dismissing petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief on the ground that it was barred by ORS 138.510(2), *as amended by*Or Laws 1989, ch 1053, § 18. The convictions that petitioner challenges became final before the effective date of the 1989 amendment. The amendment does not apply to a petition challenging a conviction that became final before the effective date of the amendment. *Boone v. Wright,*314 Or 135, 836 P2d 727 (1992).

Reversed and remanded.
### NU M BER 13- 09- 0029 9-C V 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG LA URA L. SA NDERS, A PPE LLA NT, v . EDW A RD L . SA ND ERS , A PPEL LE E.

On ap pe al f rom th e 1 07t h Dist rictC ou rt of C amero n Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef or e Just i ces Y a ñ e z , B e n a vid e s , a n d V e la M em or andu m O pi ni on P erC ur i am This ca se isbefore the C our t on a j oin t and ag re e d moti on to render j udg ment e f fe ct u a t in g t h e a gre e m e n to f t h e p a rt ie s a n d t o d is m i s s t h e a p p e a l. T h e p a rt ie s h a ve reach ed a n agreem entw ith regard to the d is p o s ition of the m atte rs currently

on ap pea l. Pursuant to ag re ement, the par ti es re q uest thi s C our

t t o render

j udg ment effectuati ng the par ti es’ ag re ement. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1( a) (2 )(A)

. The par ti es hav e ag re ed th at t he2

Cou rtsh oul d modify the tr ial cour t jud g ment by

render ing the follo w ing order : ( 1)Laura L. Benav ide z ’ name be re sto re d to Laura L. Sanders a nd (2) Ch ild s uppor t t o be pai d by Laura L. Sanders b e s et, commenc ing on N ov ember 24, 2008, to $6 30.00. W e G RA NT t he j oin t moti on to di smi ss . W e R EN DE R jud g ment effectuati ng the p a rt ie s ’ a gre e m e n t : t h e t ri a l c o u rtju d gm e n tis m o d if ie d a s fo ll o ws: (1 ) L a u ra L

. B e n a vid e z’ name be re sto re d to Laura L. Sanders a n d ( 2 ) Chil d s uppor t t o be pai d by

Laura L. Sanders b e s et, commenc ing on No vember 24 , 200 8, to $630. 00, a nd D ISM ISS the appeal

. Appel lan t s hal l bear the cos ts of thisappeal

. See i d. 42.1 (d). Th e p a rt i e s re q u e s t i mm e d i a t e i s s u a n c e o f o u r ma n d a te. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P.18. 1( c)

. The moti on i s G RA NTED

. W e di re ct the C ler k o f the C our t to i ss u e the m a n d a t e im m e d ia t e ly. P E RC U R I A M Del ivered and filed the 17th day of Dec ember , 200 9.
AFS

- 16

- 9602

April 18 , 2016

Mr. Travis R. Allen

President

Team P3 5115 N Dysart Road STE 202

- 172

Litchfield Park

, AZ 85340

Dear Mr. Allen :

Th is is in response to your November 14, 2015 letter submitted to the public docket ( No.

FAA

- 2015

- 6134) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Team

P3 for an exemption from § § 91.315, 91.319, 119.5(g) and 119.21(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR) . That exemption, if granted, would allow Team P3 to provide

f light e xperiences to enthusiast s of T eam P3’s Pilatus P3 aircraft

.

On July 21

, 2015

, the FAA issued its policy regarding Living History Flight Experience (LHFE) exemptions for passenger carrying operations conducted for compensation and hire in other than standard category aircraft (Docket N o. FAA

- 2015

- 0517)

. The FAA policy

announced the end of the FAA

- imposed moratorium on new petitions for exemption, or amendments to existing exemptions, from certain sections of 14 CFR for the purpose of carrying passengers for compensation or hire on LHFE flights. Additionally, t he FAA

canceled all previously issued LHFE policy statements. The FAA now consider s new petitions for exemption or requests for extensions or amendments to current exemptions in

accordance with certain criteria outlined in the FAA p oli cy

.

Section A of the FAA policy prescribes that Aircraft Must Be “Historically Significant

. ” It states that, e ach aircraft must be “historically significant” according to the following criteria:

 U.S. operated: The aircraft must meet a documented set of U.S. military standards for its airworthiness and operations in U.S. military service.

The Pilatus P3 aircraft does not qualify for exemption because the aircraft was not operated in U.S. Military service.2

Because the relief you seek is now covered u nder the FAA Living History Flight Experience (LHFE) policy, and the Pilatus P3 does not meet the criteria, we will take no further action on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-22671-CIV-ALTONAGA/Torres

DELIO BATISTA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AVANT ASSURANCE INC., et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte. On August 24, 2022, the Court entered 

an Order [ECF No. 4] instructing Defendants to “file a ‘Response to Plaintiff[s’] Statement of 

Claim’ . . . within twenty (20) days of being served with Plaintiff[s’] Statement of Claim.” (Id. ¶ 2 

(alteration added)). After some delays, Plaintiffs filed their Statement of Claim [ECF No. 32] on 

January 11, 2023. To date, Defendants have not filed a response, nor have they requested an 

extension of time to do so. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that on or before February 6, 2023, Defendants shall file their response to 

Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 1st day of February, 2023.

 _________________________________

 CECILIA M. ALTONAGA

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2023 Page 1 of 1