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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

# TIME AND DATE:

10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m., Thursday, June 29, 2000.

# PLACE:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Rule Enforcement Review.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 00-14035  Filed 5-31-00; 3:47 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-1000 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-048-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Replacement 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
# Intro

# Bus. Req.

&P
EXHIBIT 15(a)



                                ARTHUR ANDERSEN








August 8, 2000


Alabama Power Company
600 North 18th Street
Birmingham, Alabama  35291

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are aware that Alabama Power Company has incorporated by reference in
Registration Statement 333-67453 its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2000 which includes our report on Alabama Power Company dated August 8, 2000
covering the unaudited interim financial information contained therein. Pursuant
to Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Act"), such report is not
considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by our
firm or a report prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

Very truly yours,


/s/  Arthur Andersen LLP
§ 156.400 Applicability. ( a ) This subpart applies to oil tankers engaged in the ship-to-ship transfer of oil cargo between oil tankers (STS Operations), and to their STS Operations conducted on or after April 1, 2012, when at least one of the oil tankers is of 150 gross tonnage and above. These rules are in addition to the rules of subpart A of this part, as well as the rules in the applicable sections of parts 151, 153, 155, 156, and 157 of this chapter.
( b ) This subpart does not apply to STS Operations— ( 1 ) If the oil cargo is intended only for use as a fuel or lubricant aboard the receiving vessel (bunker operations);
( 2 ) When at least one of the ships involved in the oil transfer operation is a warship or a naval auxiliary or other ship owned or operated by a nation and used, at the time of the transfer, in government noncommercial service only; or
( 3 ) When the STS Operations are necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of a ship or saving life at sea, or for combating specific pollution incidents in order to minimize the damage from pollution; except that such vessels are subject to the requirements of §§ 156.415(g) and 156.420.
NO. 07-06-0388-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A DECEMBER 13, 2006

______________________________ JOSEPH STEWART, III, APPELLANT

V. ANTHONY HOLMES, ET AL., APPELLEES

_________________________________ FROM THE 87TH DISTRICT COURT OF AND ERSON COUNTY; NO. 87-10 358; HONO RABLE D EBORAH OAKES EV ANS, JUD GE

_______________________________ Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORAND UM OPINION Appella nt, Joseph S tewart, III, an inmate proceeding pro se, perfected this appeal from the trial court ’ s order dismissing his suit for denial of postage which he alleged was in violation of his constitutional rights. The cl erk’s record was filed on Oct ober 9, 2006. Stewart’s brief wa s due to b e filed o n Novemb er 8, 200 6, but ha s yet tobe filed

. Also, no2

motion for extension of time has bee n filed. By letter from the Clerk of this Court dated November

14, 2006, Stewart was not ified of the defect and directed to file by November 28, 2006, either his brief or a response reasonably explaining the failure to do so. Stewart
was further directed to show that Appellees, Anthony Hol mes, et al., have not been significantlyinjured by the dela y. The Court noted that failure to comply might result in dismissal pursuantto Rule 38.8(a) of the Texa s Rules of Appel late Procedure. Stewart did not respond and the brief remains outstanding. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution and failure to comp ly with a notice from the Clerk of this Court requiring a response or other action in a specified time. See Tex. R. App. P. 3 8.8(a)(1), 42.3(b) a nd (c).

Patrick A. Pirtle Justice
#### Houseworth *et al. v.*Stevens *et al.,*commissioners.

Submitted July 16,

Decided December 13, 1906.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Freeman. Troup superior court. April 24, 1906.

*Beall & Adamson,*for plaintiffs.

*Brown & Boop,*for defendants.

Beck, J.

The material questions in the ease at bar were considered and', ruled in the case of *Sellers*v. *Cox,*ante, and the present case is controlled by the decision there rendered.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Page 1 of 2

.

AO 187 (Rev. 7/87) Exhibit and List 

United States District Court

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA-MIAMI DIVISION

DELIO BATISITA,

CARLOS LOPEZ,

MARIANA LOPEZ,

and RAFAELA VALIENTE,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

AVANT ASSURANCE, INC., 

REINIER CORTES and 

ANDREA GONZALEZ QUINTERO,

Defendants.

 FINAL TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST

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

 PRESIDING JUDGE

HONORABLE 

CECILIA M. ALTONAGA

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY 

FAIRLAW FIRM

Toussaint Cummings, Esq.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

135 San Lorenzo Ave

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33146

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY

CUETO LAW GROUP P.L.

Santiago Cueto Esq., 

Daniel Tropp, Esq. 

4000 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 

Suite 470 

Coral Gables, FL 33146 

 TRIAL DATE(S)

July 10-13, 2023

 COURT REPORTER COURTROOM DEPUTY

NO.

DATE

OFFERED MARKED OBJECTIONS ADMITTED Exhibit

Joint Exhibits

1 Photographs of Avant Documents (Plaintiffs Bates 000001-17)

2

Avant Assurance Independent Contractor (IC) Standards Guide 

(Plaintiffs 000018-23)

3 Mariana Lopez Resignation Letter (Plaintiffs 000024)

4

Emails (Plaintiffs 000025-34, 000042-68, 000129-138, DOC 

000010-15, Defendants Mariana and Carlos Lopez 00002)

5 Independent Contractor Non-Disclosure Agreement (000036)

6 Avant Client Consent Statement

7 Work Schedules Created by Alix Ledesma

8 Avant 2022 Compensation and Bonus Plans (Avant 000022-23)

9

Delio Batista State Licenses and Certifications (Plantiffs 000071-

78)

10 Delio Batista Text messages (000081-000112)

11 Plaintiff Carlos Lopez Text Messages (Bates 000113-000127).

12 Spreadsheet of Payments to Plaintiffs (provided by Defendants).

13

All Monthly Commission Statement Spreadsheets sent from 

Defendants to Plaintiffs

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2023 Page 1 of 2 Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

.

14

All Monthly Commission Statement Emails sent from 

Defendants to Plaintiffs 

15 Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Admissions

16

Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiffs First Request for 

Interrogatories 

17 Spreadsheets Prepared by Carlos Lopez

18 Documents Produced by Defendants (Bates1-16)

19 Plaintiffs’ Responses to Discovery

Respectfully Submitted on July 7, 2023.

s/Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq. (174742)

brian@fairlawattorney.com

Toussaint Cummings (119877)

toussaint@fairlawattorney.com

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Avenue

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33156

Tel: 305.230.4884

Counsel for Plaintiffs

By: Daniel Tropp, Esq. 

Daniel E. Tropp, Esq. (948128)

CUETO LAW GROUP P.L.

4000 Ponce de Leon Blvd.,

Suite 470 Coral Gables, Florida 33146

Tel.: (305) 777-0377

Tel.: (direct line) (786) 306-1293 

dantroppesq@gmail.com

Counsel for Defendants

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2023 Page 2 of 2 Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 2 of 2
FeedbackSite MapContact

HOW CAN WE HELP YOU?
		Search for:
	HomeAbout ADRLegislation and Interagency ADR Working GroupReport for the President on Significant Developments in Federal Alternative Dispute Resolution, January 2017 (PDF)External-Facing Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the PublicConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the Federal WorkforcePrograms and ContactsResources and GuidanceConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Resources for Federal ADR ProgramsInteragency ADR Working Group Resource CenterEventsCoalition of Federal Ombuds
Search for:  Ch.10 – GAO Protests

															Home/ADR Resources and Guidance/Guidance/Ch.10 – GAO Protests Ch.10 – GAO ProtestsADR2022-02-19T08:55:07-05:00
			
			Ch.10 – GAO Protests**The Authority of the GAO in Bid Protests:**
Since 1985, GAO has had detailed regulations governing bid protests over federal procurement actions.  These regulations were promulgated to implement the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA).  The regulations have been revised over time to implement statutory and other changes.  Most recently, the regulations were revised, effective January 1, 2003, to conform the regulations to current practice and otherwise improve the efficiency and efficacy of the bid protest process at GAO.  The revised regulations appear in Title 4 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Part 21.
**ADR in bid protests at the GAO:**
The GAO has “Express” and “Alternative” options available, including ADR, to help speed the normal 100-day default adjudication process.  ADR in GAO protests is described succinctly within 4 CFR 21.10(e) as follows:  “GAO, on its own initiative or upon request by the parties, may use flexible alternative procedures to promptly and fairly resolve a protest, including alternative dispute resolution . . .”  For more information, GAO’s Descriptive Guide is a useful resource.
**Types of ADR:**
GAO offers three types of non-binding ADR: outcome prediction, litigation risk, and negotiation assistance.  The parties may request ADR at any point in the bid protest process, or GAO may initiate ADR or provide other types of feedback without the agreement of all parties.  GAO attorneys have great flexibility in the conduct of ADR and may tailor the proceedings consistent with the requirements of the situation.  ADR may be used in all kinds of cases–protests, requests for consideration, and cost claims.  For more information, visit the subpages below.
**LEARN MORE**
GAO Background Information
GAO’s Descriptive Guide
GAO ADR Practice Tips
GAO’s Litigation Risk ADR
GAO’s Negotiation Assistance ADR
GAO’s Outcome Predition ADR

Subpages (4): GAO ADR Practice Tips | Litigation Risk ADR | Negotiation Assistance ADR | Outcome Prediction ADR Copyright 2022 ADR.gov | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  FOIA  |  Section 508
#### § 783.5 Interpretations made, continued, and superseded by this part.

On and after publication of this part 783 in the Federal Register, the interpretations contained therein shall be in effect and shall remain in effect until they are modified, rescinded or withdrawn. This part supersedes and replaces the interpretations previously published in the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations as part 783 of this chapter. Prior opinions, rulings, and interpretations and prior enforcement policies which are not inconsistent with the interpretations in this part or with the Fair Labor Standards Act as amended by the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1961 are continued in effect; all other opinions, rulings, interpretations, and enforcement policies on the subjects discussed in the interpretations in this part are rescinded and withdrawn. The interpretations in this part provide statements of general principles applicable to the subjects discussed and illustrations of the application of these principles to situations that frequently arise. They do not and cannot refer specifically to every problem which may be met by employers and employees in the application of the Act. The omission to discuss a particular problem in this part or in interpretations supplementing it should not be taken to indicate the adoption of any position by the Secretary of Labor or the Administrator with respect to such problem or to constitute an administrative interpretations or practice or enforcement policy. Questions on matters not fully covered by this part may be addressed to the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210, or to any Regional Office of the Division.
§ 548.2 General conditions. The requirements of section 7 of the Act with respect to the payment of overtime compensation to an employee for a workweek longer than the applicable number of hours established in section 7(a) of the Act, will be met under the provisions of section 7(g)(3) of the Act by payments which satisfy all the following standards: ( a ) Overtime compensation computed in accordance with this part and section 7(g)(3) of the Act is paid pursuant to an agreement or understanding arrived at between the employer and the employee or as a result of collective bargaining before performance of the work;
( b ) A rate is established by such agreement or understanding as the basic rate to be used in computing overtime compensation thereunder;
( c ) The established basic rate is a specified rate or a rate which can be derived from the application of a specified method of calculation;
( d ) The established basic rate is a bona fide rate and is not less than the minimum hourly rate required by applicable law;
( e ) The basic rate so established is authorized by § 548.3 or is authorized by the Administrator under § 548.4 as being substantially equivalent to the average hourly earnings of the employee, exclusive of overtime premiums, in the particular work over a representative period of time;
( f ) Overtime hours are compensated at a rate of not less than one and one-half times such established basic rate;
( g ) The hours for which the employee is paid not less than one and one-half times such established basic rate qualify as overtime hours under section 7(e) (5), (6), or (7) of the Act;
( h ) The number of hours for which the employee is paid not less than one and one-half times such established basic rate equals or exceeds the number of hours worked by him in any workweek in excess of the maximum workweek applicable to such employees under subsection 7(a) of the Act;
( i ) The employee's average hourly earnings for the workweek exclusive of payments described in paragraphs (1) through (7) of section 7(e) of the Act are not less than the minimum hourly rate required by this Act or other applicable law;
( j ) Extra overtime compensation is properly computed and paid on other forms of additional pay which have not been considered in arriving at the basic rate but which are required to be included in computing the regular rate.
[20 FR 5679, Aug. 6, 1955, as amended at 26 FR 7731, Aug. 18, 1961]
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




I, Leonard Borow, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Aeroflex Incorporated, hereby certify that the Form 10-Q of
Aeroflex Incorporated for the period ended September 30, 2009 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Aeroflex
Incorporated.




/s/ Leonard BorowName:  Leonard
      BorowDate:  November
      5,  2009




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Aeroflex Incorporated and will be retained by Aeroflex Incorporated and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 40208 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ABRAHAM HERNANDEZ

- ALDAY , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:13

- CR

- 409

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Abraham Hernandez

- Alday pleaded guilty to being found unlawfully present in the United States following removal ; he received a below

- guidelines range sentence of 30 months o f imprisonment

. T he parties agree that , because Hernandez

- Alday was sentenced to deferred adjudication f or a prior burglary conviction, he was not convicted of an aggravated felony and, thus, the judgment improperly reflects that he was

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 8, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40208 Document: 00512894630 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2015No. 14

- 40208
convicted and sentenced under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)

. See United States v. Mondragon

- Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 368 (5th Cir. 2009). B ecause Hernandez

Alday ’s offense was a § 1326(b)(1) violation rather than a § 1326(b)(2) violation, we REMAND for the limited purpose of reforming the judgment to reflect the proper statute of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106. In all other respe cts, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 14-40208 Document: 00512894630 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2015
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

THOMAS J. ZIOL,

Plaintiff,

v.

COLLINS ASSET GROUP, LLC,

Defendant, 

_________________________________/

Civil Action No. 9:22-cv-81341-AHS

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff, THOMAS J. ZIOL, and Defendant, 

COLLINS ASSET GROUP, LLC, hereby notify the Court the parties have reached 

settlement, and are in the process of completing the settlement agreement and filing 

dismissal papers. The parties anticipate filing dismissal papers within 60 days.

DATED: September 28, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Alexander J. Taylor 

Alexander J. Taylor, Esq., 

Of Counsel 

Florida Bar No. 1013947 

Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.

2500 S. Highland Ave, Suite 200

Lombard, IL 60148

Telephone: (630) 575-8181

Facsimile: (630) 575-8188

ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com 

 Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 9:22-cv-81341-AHS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2022 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 28, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court for the Southern District of Florida by using the CM/ECF 

system.

/s/ Alexander J. Taylor 

Case 9:22-cv-81341-AHS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2022 Page 2 of 2
#### § 156.300 Designated lightering zones.

The following lightering zones are designated in the Gulf of Mexico and are more than 60 miles from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured:

(a) *Southtex—lightering zone.* This lightering zone and the geographic area for this zone are coterminous and consist of the waters bounded by a line connecting the following points beginning at:

| *Latitude N.* | *Longitude W.* |
| --- | --- |
| 27°40′00′′, | 93°00′00′′, thence to |
| 27°40′00′′, | 94°35′00′′, thence to |
| 28°06′30′′, | 94°35′00′′, thence to |
| 27°21′00′′, | 96°00′00′′, thence to |
| 26°30′00′′, | 96°00′00′′, thence to |
| 26°30′00′′, | 93°00′00′′, and thence to the point of beginning. |

(NAD 83)

(b) *Gulfmex No. 2—lightering zone.* This lightering zone and the geographic area for this zone are coterminous and consist of the waters bounded by a line connecting the following points beginning at:

| *Latitude N.* | *Longitude W.* |
| --- | --- |
| 27°53′00′′, | 89°00′00′′, thence to |
| 27°53′00′′, | 91°30′00′′, thence to |
| 26°30′00′′, | 91°30′00′′, thence to |
| 26°30′00′′, | 89°00′00′′, and thence to the point of beginning. |

(NAD 83)

(c) *Offshore Pascagoula No. 2—lightering zone.* This lightering zone and the geographic area for this zone are coterminous and consist of the waters bounded by a line connecting the following points beginning at:

| *Latitude N.* | *Longitude W.* |
| --- | --- |
| 29°20′00′′, | 87°00′00′′, thence to |
| 29°12′00′′, | 87°45′00′′, thence to |
| 28°39′00′′, | 88°00′00′′, thence to |
| 28°00′00′′, | 88°00′00′′, thence to |
| 28°00′00′′, | 87°00′00′′, and thence to the point of beginning. |

(NAD 83)

(d) *South Sabine Point—lightering zone.* This lightering zone and the geographic area for this zone are coterminous and consist of the waters bounded by a line connecting the following points beginning at:

| *Latitude N.* | *Longitude W.* |
| --- | --- |
| 28°30′00′′, | 92°38′00′′, thence to |
| 28°44′00′′, | 93°24′00′′, thence to |
| 28°33′00′′, | 94°00′00′′, thence to |
| 28°18′00′′, | 94°00′00′′, thence to |
| 28°18′00′′, | 92°38′00′′, and thence to the point of beginning. |

(NAD 83)