alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5

<MULTIPLIER>                                                              1

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                               MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                    JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                           $2,894,589
<SECURITIES>                                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       995,075
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         32,000
<INVENTORY>                                                       1,683,117
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  6,153,863
<PP&E>                                                            2,955,107
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    1,401,443
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                    9,999,686
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             1,653,027
<BONDS>                                                              51,070
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                                               0
<COMMON>                                                              1,364
<OTHER-SE>                                                        8,119,763
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                      9,999,686
<SALES>                                                           2,125,072
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  2,209,401
<CGS>                                                             1,850,827
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     1,850,827
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                      287
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  (1,209,493)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         10,758
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              (1,220,251)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     (1,220,251)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                         (9.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         (9.44)



</TABLE>
#### Morton, et al. v. Green.

(Decided January 11, 1916.)

Appeal from Muhlenberg Circuit Court.

Judgment — Presumption of Correctness. — No error in the judgment being specified in a brief by counsel.for appellants, this court will -assume the judgment to he correct, and affirm it.

C. A. DENNY for appellants.

TAYLOR, EAVES & SPARKS for appellee.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Clarke

Affirming.

Appellee brought this suit to recover judgment for material furnished appellants in the construction of a house, and for a lien on the property. Appellants denied that there was any balance due appellee, and asserted that a correct adjustment of their accounts would show a balance due them. The matter was referred to the master-commissioner with instructions to hear proof and report his finding. The master, after proof had been taken, reported a balance of $81.33 in favor of appellee. Appellants filed exceptions to this report, which were sustained by the court to the extent of giving appellants a further credit of $12.44 and. appellee was given judgment against appellants for $68.89, and ordered the property sold to satisfy same.

• Brief of counsel for appellants is simply an invitation for us to read the record with an assurance that if we will do so, we will discover that they,1 rather than appellee, were entitled to judgment. No error is pointed out or any reason assigned why the judgment should be reversed. In Brown v. Daniels, 154 Ky., 267, this court said:

> *634“When counsel for appellants do not point out in a brief any errors in the judgment appealed from, ór assign any reason why it should be reversed, this court having neither the time nor the inclination to hunt for errors that might justify a reversal, will assume that the judgment appealed from is correct, and affirm it. ’ ’

See, also, Crawford v. Wiedeman, 158 Ky., 33; Continental Ins. Co. v. Ramsey, 160 Ky., 441, and Commonwealth v. L. *&*E. Ry. Co., 167 Ky., 442.

Judgment affirmed.
#### Stark *v.*Cummings.

Submitted July 18,

Decided December 13, 1906.

Cancellation of deed. Before Judge Fite. Dade superior court. September 30, 1905.

*T. J. Lumpkin*and *H. P. Lumpkin,*by *Z. D. Harrison,*for plaintiff.

Atkinson, J.

1. When it is sought to set aside a sheriff’s deed upon the ground of excessiveness of the levy, the actual market value of the property should be compared with the amount due upon the fi. fa. In the ease at bar the market value was not ascertainable by testimony as to what such property usually brings at tax sales, the witness testifying further that at other public sales such property usually brought a higher price. Accordingly, it was erroneous for the court, over proper objection urged by the plaintiff, to permit witnesses for the defendant to testify: “At these tax sales, property never sold for its value. The lot in dispute . . sold for about as much as any other similar lot of land sold for at tax sale in the year 1896 in that locality.”

2. The undisputed evidence shows that the land was capable of subdivision into lots of sufficient value to discharge the fi. fa. The amount of taxes and costs was less than $8. The lowest estimate of the value of the entire lot was about $250. Under these circumstances, the levy upon the entire tract was excessive and the sale was void. See, in this connection, *Doane*v. *Chittenden,*25 *Ga.*103, and Van Epps’ citations thereunder, especially *Williamson*v. *White,*101 *Ga.*276, with cases therein cited; *Stark*v. *Cummings,*119 *Ga.*35, and cit. The sheriff’s deed being void, the verdict for the defendant is without evidence to support it.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Cobh, P. J., disqualified.*
Editorial Note on Part 148
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

§ 148.515 When is an exemption allowed? The Commandant (CG-5P) may recommend that MARAD allow an exemption if he or she determines that: ( a ) Compliance with the requirement would be contrary to public interest;
( b ) Compliance with the requirement would not enhance safety or the health of the environment;
( c ) Compliance with the requirement is not practical because of local conditions or because the materials or personnel needed for compliance are unavailable;
( d ) National security or national economy justifies a departure from the rules; or
( e ) The alternative, if any, proposed in the petition would: ( 1 ) Ensure comparable or greater safety, protection of the environment, and quality of deepwater port construction, maintenance, and operation; and
( 2 ) Be consistent with recognized principles of international law.
[USCG-1998-3884, 71 FR 57651, Sept. 29, 2006, as amended by USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39178, July 1, 2013]
#### § 167.501 In the approaches to Los Angeles/Long Beach: Precautionary area.

(a) The precautionary area consists of the water area enclosed by the Los Angeles-Long Beach breakwater and a line connecting Point Fermin Light at 33°42.30′ N, 118°17.60′ W, with the following geographical positions:

| Latitude | Longitude |
| --- | --- |
| 33°35.50′ N | 118°17.60′ W. |
| 33°35.50′ N | 118°09.00′ W. |
| 33°37.70′ N | 118°06.50′ W. |
| 33°43.40′ N | 118°10.80′ W. |

(b) Pilot boarding areas are located within the precautionary area described in paragraph (a) of this section. Specific regulations pertaining to vessels operating in these areas are contained in 33 CFR 165.1109(d).

[USCG-2000-7695, 65 FR 53913, Sept. 6, 2000]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-CR-80128-CANNON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

GEORGE MURILLO,

Defendant.

NOTICE ON FORFEITURE

The United States of America (the “United States”), by and through the undersigned 

Assistant United States Attorney, hereby files this notice on forfeiture. The United States is not 

pursuing federal judicial forfeiture at this time.

Respectfully submitted,

JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

s/ Sara M. Klco 

Sara M. Klco

Assistant United States Attorney

Florida Bar No. 60358 

99 N.E. 4th Street, 7th Floor

Miami FL, 33132-2111

Telephone: (305) 961-9165

E-mail: Sara.Klco@usdoj.gov

Counsel for the United States of America

Case 9:22-cr-80128-AMC Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 1 of 1
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 on Defendants’ Sworn Motion to Excuse One Day 

Delay on Motions Deadlines Nunc Pro Tunc [ECF No. 64]. Being fully advised, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is GRANTED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 17th day of May, 2023.

 _______________________________________

 CECILIA M. ALTONAGA

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record 

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2023 Page 1 of 1
CHRISTOPHER SEAN BURKHART,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-2501

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 8, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

Christopher Sean Burkhart, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, B.L. THOMAS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
§ 154.710 Persons in charge: Designation and qualification. No person may serve, and the facility operator may not use the services of a person, as person in charge of facility transfer operations unless: ( a ) The facility operator has designated that person as a person in charge;
( b ) The person has had at least 48 hours of experience in transfer operations at a facility in operations to which this part applies. The person also has enough experience at the facility for which qualification is desired to enable the facility operator to determine that the person's experience is adequate;
( c ) The person has completed a training and qualification program established by the facility operator and described in the Operations Manual in accordance with § 154.310(a)(21), that provides the person with the knowledge and training necessary to properly operate the transfer equipment at the facility, perform the duties described in paragraph (d) of this section, follow the procedures required by this part, and fulfill the duties required of a person in charge during an emergency, except that the COTP may approve alternative experience and training requirements for new facilities; and
( d ) The facility operator must certify that each person in charge has the knowledge of, and skills necessary to— ( 1 ) The hazards of each product to be transferred;
( 2 ) The rules in this part and in part 156 of this chapter;
( 3 ) The facility operating procedures as described in the operations manual;
( 4 ) Vessel transfer systems, in general;
( 5 ) Vessel transfer control systems, in general;
( 6 ) Each facility transfer control system to be used;
( 7 ) Follow local discharge reporting procedures; and
( 8 ) Carry out the facility's response plan for discharge reporting and containment.
( e ) Training conducted to comply with the hazard communication programs required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) of the Department of Labor (DOL) (29 CFR 1910.1200) or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (40 CFR 311.1), or to meet the requirements of subpart F of this part may be used to satisfy the requirements in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, as long as the training addresses the requirements in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
(Sec. 311(j)(1)(C) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (86 Stat. 816, 868); 33 U.S.C. 1161(j)(1)(C); E.O. 11548, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 949; 49 CFR 1.46(m))
[CGD 71-160R, 37 FR 28253, Dec. 21, 1972, as amended by CGD 86-034, 55 FR 36253, Sept. 4, 1990; CGD 93-056, 61 FR 41460, Aug. 8, 1996]
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended July 4, 2009 of K-Tron International, Inc.;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)) and internal
control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     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
function):




---



##### 



ROBERT E. WISNIEWSKIRobert E. WisniewskiSenior Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 160 (Thursday, August 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 51400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21076]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By a Notice dated April 28, 2011, and published in the Federal 
Register on May 4, 2011 76 FR 25374, Rhodes Technologies, 498 
Washington Street, Coventry, Rhode Island 02816, made application by 
renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered 
as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raw Opium (9600).............                                         II
Concentrate of Poppy Straw                                            II
 (9670)......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in 
order to bulk manufacture controlled substances in Active 
Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) form. The company distributes the 
manufactured API's in bulk form only to its customers.
    As explained in the Correction to Notice of Application pertaining 
to Rhodes Technologies, 72 FR 3417 (2007), comments and requests for 
hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not 
appropriate.
    DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a), and 
determined that the registration of Rhodes Technologies to import the 
basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public 
interest, and with United States obligations under international 
treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has 
investigated Rhodes Technologies to ensure that the company's 
registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation 
has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security 
systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local 
laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, 
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 
1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer 
of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.

    Dated: August 11, 2011.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-21076 Filed 8-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Exhibit


32.2








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 Quarterly Report of MotivNation Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George R. Lefevre, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge and belief:





(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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/ George Lefevre




Dated: October 18, 2010                                                  By: _________________________


George Lefevre, Chief Financial Officer
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"ADR.gov","provider_url":"https:\/\/adr.gov","title":"Executive Orders","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"GfgFiNSLP8\"><a href=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/04-eo\/\">Executive Orders<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/04-eo\/embed\/#?secret=GfgFiNSLP8\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Executive Orders” — ADR.gov\" data-secret=\"GfgFiNSLP8\" 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"}
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal No. 00-40] 

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Pub. L. 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 00-40 with attached transmittal and policy justification.

Dated: June 2, 2000.

Patricia L. Toppings,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 36419)          ( print page 36420)          ( print page 36421)    

BILLING CODE 5001-01-M

[FR Doc. 00-14419 Filed 6-7-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-C
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-80128-CR-CANNON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GEORGE MURILLO,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

SECOND NOTICE OF FILING

Defendant, George Murillo, through undersigned counsel, files the attached 

letters for the Court's consideration at the time of his sentencing. 

Respectfully submitted,

MICHAEL CARUSO

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

s/ Kristy Militello 

Kristy Militello

Assistant Federal Public Defender

Attorney for the Defendant

Florida Bar No. 0056366

250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

(561) 833-6288 Telephone 

Kristy_Militello@fd.org

Case 9:22-cr-80128-AMC Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 15, 2023, 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 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/ Kristy Militello 

Kristy Militello

Case 9:22-cr-80128-AMC Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2023 Page 2 of 2