alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 245.60 Reimbursement for removal costs.

The Corps of Engineers will seek reimbursement from the owner, operator, or lessee, if identified, for all removal and disposal costs in excess of the value of the recovered vessel (or other obstruction) and cargo.
§ 3.65-1 Thirteenth district. ( a ) The District Office is in Seattle, Wash.
( b ) The Thirteenth Coast Guard District shall comprise Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana; and the ocean area bounded by a line from California-Oregon state line westerly to latitude 40° N. longitude, 150° W., thence northeasterly to latitude 54°40′ N., longitude 140° W., thence due east to the Canadian coast.
[CGFR 61-40, 26 FR 10352, Nov. 3, 1961]
§ 203.51 Levee owner's manual. ( a ) *Authority.* In accordance with section 202(f) of Public Law 104-303, the Corps will provide a levee owner's manual to the non-Federal sponsor of all flood control works in an Active status in the RIP.
( b ) *Policies* — ( 1 ) *Active non-Federal projects.* A levee owner's manual developed and distributed by the Corps will be provided to all sponsors of Active non-Federal projects. The levee owner's manual will include the standards that must be met to maintain an Active status in the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program. Levee owner's manuals will also be provided, upon request, to sponsors of Inactive non-Federal projects so that the sponsors may evaluate their projects and prepare for an IEI to gain an Active status in the RIP.
( 2 ) *Federal projects.* The Operation and Maintenance Manual specified by 33 CFR 208.10(a)(10) will fulfill the requirement of providing a levee owner's manual if the Corps has not provided a separate levee owner's manual to the sponsor of a Federal project.
( c ) *Procedural requirements.* Levee Owner's Manuals will be initially provided to non-Federal sponsors of Active flood control works during scheduled CEI's and IEI's. Sponsors of Inactive projects and private levee owners will be provided manuals upon written request to the responsible Corps district.
Original

No. 7313

#### Kenneth E. Blevens v. New England Telephone and Telegraph Company

April 30, 1976

Kenneth E. Blevens, pro se, by brief and orally.

*McLane, Graf, Greene, Raulerson & Middleton*and *Arthur G. Greene (Mr. Greene*orally) for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

This petition for writ of certiorari seeks a determination that the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s small claim for rent for the maintenance of a guy wire and stub pole across and on plaintiff’s property on the ground that the title to real estate was involved and that it therefore lacked jurisdiction. RSA 502-A14 (Supp. 1975); RSA 503:1 (Supp. 1975); N.H. Const, pt. 1, art. 20.

Defendant has submitted the affidavit of one of its engineers that the guy wire and stub pole in question have been maintained in the same location for thirty-forty years. *Flewelling v. Roby,*97 N.H. 97, 82 A.2d 83 (1951). Defendant’s claim to an easement raises the question therefore as to whether plaintiff’s title is such as to entitle him to charge defendant rent. This sufficiently involves the title to real estate to remove the case from the jurisdiction of the district court. *Gowen v. Swain,*90 N.H. 383, 10 A.2d 249 (1939); *Hatch v. Hillsgrove,*83 N.H. 91, 138 A. 428 (1927); *Allen v. Smith,*375 S.W.2d 874 (Mo. App. 1964); *Ladd v. Teichman,*359 Mich. 587, 103 N.W.2d 338 (1960).

*Petition dismissed.*

Kenison, C.J. did not sit; the others concurred.
§ 154.1040 Specific requirements for facilities that could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment. ( a ) The owner or operator of a facility that, under § 154.1015, could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment, shall submit a response plan that meets the requirements of § 154.1035, except as modified by this section.
( b ) The facility's response activities section of the response plan need not list the facility or corporate organizational structure that will be used to manage the response, as required by § 154.1035(b)(3)(iii).
( c ) The owner or operator of a facility must ensure the availability of response resources required to be identified in § 154.1035(b)(3)(iv) by contract or other approved means described in § 154.1028.
( d ) A facility owner or operator must have at least 200 feet of containment boom and the means of deploying and anchoring the boom available at the spill site within 1 hour of the detection of a spill to respond to the average most probable discharge in lieu of the quantity of containment boom specified in § 154.1045(c)(1). Based on site-specific or facility-specific information, the COTP may specify that additional quantities of containment boom are available within one hour. In addition, there must be adequate sorbent material for initial response to an average most probable discharge. If the facility is a fixed facility, the containment boom and sorbent material must be located at the facility. If the facility is a mobile facility, the containment boom and sorbent must be available locally and be at the site of the discharge within 1 hour of its discovery.
Exhibit 13.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Allied Domecq PLC (the
"Group") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:



|                        |  |                                                                   
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: 15 December 2004 |  | /s/ GRAHAM HETHERINGTONGraham Hetherington
Chief Financial Officer

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Group, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---



QuickLinks
Sunrise City Construction Development LLC

Account Holder: Sunrise City Construction Development LLC

Account Signer(s): Maurice Shazier

Bank: Bank of America

Account #: 7117

Account Type: Business Advantage Relationship Banking Preferred Rewards for Bus Platinum Honors

Opened: 7/2/2019

Statements Rec'd: 7/1/2019 - 3/31/2022

Bank Account

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 204-37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2023 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"ADR.gov","provider_url":"https:\/\/adr.gov","title":"Army Materiel Command Protest Program","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"dttGETMxUS\"><a href=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/09-amcpp\/\">Army Materiel Command Protest Program<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/09-amcpp\/embed\/#?secret=dttGETMxUS\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Army Materiel Command Protest Program” — ADR.gov\" data-secret=\"dttGETMxUS\" 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"}
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 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Against 

Defendant Avant Assurance Inc. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 [ECF No. 143], filed on November 

28, 2023. Plaintiffs request the Court impose sanctions on Avant Assurance Inc. for raising 

“meritless arguments for a new trial and remittitur” in a “futile attempt to delay Plaintiffs’ receipt” 

of their jury award. (Mot. 2). 

Following jury trial and entry of Final Judgment [ECF No. 106], Avant filed a Renewed 

Motion for Remittitur, or Alternatively, New Trial [ECF No. 124], on September 21, 2023. 

According to Avant, the jury must have “reached [the verdict] through speculation[,]” and “the 

damages are excessive.” (Renewed Mot. 2, 16 (alterations added)). 

In their Motion, Plaintiffs argue Avant should be sanctioned under Rule 11 for continuing 

to pursue post-judgment relief “in the face of such clear law and facts” in Plaintiffs’ favor. (Mot. 

7). Yet, the Court has not entered a final ruling on the Renewed Motion. And in September 2023, 

Plaintiffs and Avant appealed the Judgment to the Eleventh Circuit. (See Avant’s Notice of Appeal 

[ECF No. 121]; Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal [ECF No. 122]). The appeal is pending. 

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2023 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 22-22671-CIV-ALTONAGA/Torres

2

“The time when sanctions are to be imposed rests in the discretion of the trial judge.” 

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 56 n.19 (1991) (citation and quotation marks omitted). 

Given Avant’s outstanding post-trial motion and the appeal, the request for sanctions is premature. 

Plaintiffs would be well served to await the Court’s decision on Avant’s Renewed Motion for 

Remittitur, or Alternatively, New Trial and the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, before re-filing a 

motion for sanctions. 

Being fully advised, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion [ECF No. 143]

is DENIED without prejudice. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 29th day of November, 2023.

________________________________________

CECILIA M. ALTONAGA

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2023 Page 2 of 2
§ 20.702 Burden of proof. ( a ) Except for an affirmative defense, or as provided by paragraph (b) of this section, the Coast Guard bears the burden of proof.
( b ) Except as otherwise provided by statute or rule, the proponent of a motion, request, or order bears the burden of proof.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         225,454
<SECURITIES>                                   393,584
<RECEIVABLES>                                      971
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               226,425
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 620,009 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,047 
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<COMMON>                                        45,500 
<OTHER-SE>                                     573,462 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   620,009 
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,919
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   954 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,965 
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,144 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,821 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,821
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01 
        

</TABLE>
§ 187.11 What are the procedures to participate in VIS? ( a ) A State wanting to participate in VIS must inform the Commandant in writing, describing its willingness and ability to comply with each requirement of § 187.201 of this part. If the Commandant is satisfied that the State will comply fully with § 187.201 of this part, the State will be allowed to participate in VIS and will be listed in Appendix A to this part, for as long as the Commandant determines that the State complies fully with § 187.201 of this part.
( b ) A State wanting to participate in VIS but unable to comply with one or more requirements of § 187.201 of this part may participate in VIS under one or more waivers, for good cause shown. For purposes of this section, “good cause” includes the existence of State law prohibiting full compliance. A State wanting to participate in VIS under one or more waivers must— ( 1 ) Inform the Commandant in writing;
( 2 ) Describe the requirement or requirements for which waiver is sought and the good cause for noncompliance; and
( 3 ) Describe the steps the State intends to take to remove the good cause and the anticipated time needed to do so.
( c ) The Commandant may allow a State to participate in VIS under one or more waivers, pursuant to a memorandum of agreement between the Coast Guard and the State. ( 1 ) The memorandum of agreement recites the information provided by the State under paragraph (b) of this section and is valid for not more than 3 years, during which time the State will be deemed to participate in VIS and be listed in Appendix A to this part.
( 2 ) The State may withdraw from the memorandum of agreement and participation in VIS upon written notice to the Commandant. The Commandant may terminate the memorandum of agreement and the State's participation in VIS for non-compliance with the terms of the memorandum.
( 3 ) Participation in VIS under one or more waivers beyond the term of the initial memorandum of agreement requires a new memorandum.
( 4 ) If the good cause for waivers is eliminated within the term of the memorandum of agreement, the State may so inform the Commandant in writing. The Commandant may then consider the State to participate in VIS under paragraph (a) of this section.
[USCG-2003-14963, 77 FR 18703, Mar. 28, 2012]
§ 20.707 Telephonic testimony. ( a ) The ALJ may order the taking of the testimony of a witness by telephonic conference call. A person presenting evidence may by motion ask for the taking of testimony by this means. The arrangement of the call must let each participant listen to and speak to each other within the hearing of the ALJ, who will ensure the full identification of each so the reporter can create a proper record.
( b ) The ALJ may issue a subpoena directing a witness to testify by telephonic conference call. The subpoena in any such instance issues under the procedures in § 20.608.
President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities 


Washington, D.C. 20447 


President Barack Obama 

The White House 

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20500 

Dear Mr. President: 

The President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities (PCPID) enthusiastically 

submits to you the Committee's 2015 report, Leveling the Playing Field: Improving 

Technology Access and Design/or People with Intellectual Disabilities, in accordance with 

Executive Order 12994, as amended by Executive Orders 13446 and 13652. This highly 

collaborative Annual Report is a product of the expertise, analysis and judgment of your 

Committee appointees, all of whom are motivated and dedicated to make a difference in the lives 

of individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID). PCPID is, therefore, honored to offer 

recommendations embodied in this Report that serve people with ID. 

Technology is the Committee's focus this year, as we continue to advocate for many advances 

that enhance the capacity of people with ID to fully participate in their respective communities, 

in their own health care decisions, in their educational attainment, and in their economic wellbeing. The Committee is convinced that in today's world the full participation of people with ID 

in their communities is achievable, but requires accessible, affordable and sophisticated 

technology. Little of the world's technology is available to individuals with ID, though research 

and accessible design are prerequisites for change. We see this as a matter of access and we see 

this as a matter of democracy. 

Brilliant minds have offered the world extraordinary technological conveniences to manage 

common-place occurrences of daily life. So many enjoy these conveneinces and organize their 

lives around them, and so could people with ID, ifthe necessary resources and will are leveraged 

to accomplish this goal. Rapidly developing technolgy, while a great thing, remains such a 

significant factor in everyone's life that without focused intervention a gap continues to widen 

between the kinds of lives available to people with ID and other Americans. It is our hope that 

this Report provides vital information that will bring together the necessary technological 

resources to close that gap. 

The Committee greatly appreciates the opportunity to address these matters with you and your 

Administration. We also look forward to the enormous differences we can make together in the 

lives of people with ID. 

r~~ Julie Petty 

PCPID Chair
Exhibit 99.1

                               DIGITALTHINK, INC.

                            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  DigitalThink,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael W. Pope, Chief
Executive Officer,  President and Director 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 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ MICHAEL W. POPE
--------------------------
Michael W. Pope
Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
June 10, 2003
#### § 52.57 Record of hearing.

A hearing pursuant to this subpart in open session shall be recorded verbatim and, at the discretion of the Board or direction of the Secretary, shall be transcribed.
#### ELON G. CARPENTER, Appellant, *v.*THOMAS GREEN and JAMES GREEN, Respondents.

*Summa/tp proceedings—when appeal does not lief rom judgment in.*

Appeal was brought from a judgment of the County Court of Ontario county, reversing the judgment of a justice of the peace, rendered upon the verdict of a jury, in summary proceedings instituted by the plaintiff as landlord to remove the defendants as tenants.

The court was of opinion that no appeal to this court in cases like this has been given. It. is a special proceeding, and the Code relates only to appeals in civil actions. The act of 1854, in relation to special proceedings (chap. 270), is confined to appeals from an order or final determination, made at a Special Term of the same court, and does not authorize an appeal from such order or determination of a County Court. That as the act of 1849, to amend the Revised Statutes in relation to summary proceedings to recover the possession of land, expressly provides that the decision of the county judge shall be final, the court had no alternative but to dismiss the appeal. (Laws 1849, chap. 193, § 5, sub. 2; *Deuel*v. *Rust,*24 Barb., 438, 446.)

*Spencer Gooding,*for the appellant.

*Henry Brush,*for the respondents.

Opinion by

Gilbert, J.

Appeal dismissed without costs.
§ 334.1020 San Francisco Bay and Oakland Inner Harbor; restricted areas in vicinity of Naval Air Station, Alameda. ( a ) *The areas.* ( 1 ) The waters of San Francisco Bay bounded by the shore of Naval Air Station, Alameda, and a line beginning at a point on the north side of Oakland Inner Harbor Entrance Channel at approximately: 37°47′57′′ N, 122°19′43′′ W; WSW to 37°47′53′′ N, 122°19′57′′ W; SE to 37°47′46′′ N, 122°20′00′′ W; SE to 37°47′41′′ N, 122°19′52′′ W; S to 37°46′49′′ N, 122°19′52′′ W; E to 37°46′49′′ N, 122°19′28′′ W; SE to 37°46′46′′ N, 122°19′21′′ W; E to 37°46′45′′ N, 122°19′05′′ W; SE to 37°46′38′′ N, 122°18′59′′ W; SSW to 37°46′18′′ N, 122°19′05′′ W; SE to 37°46′00′′ N, 122°18′28′′ W; E to 37°46′00′′ N, 122°18′22′′ W; N to 37°46′03′′ N, 122°18′22′′ W; E to 37°46′00′′ N, 122°17′28′′ W; NE to 37°46′03′′ N, 122°17′26′′ W; where it joins the Naval Air Station, Alameda, Breakwater.
( 2 ) The waters of the entrance channel to Oakland Inner Harbor (San Antonio Estuary) between the westerly end of the rock wall on the south side of the channel and the easterly boundary of the Naval Air Station.
( b ) *The regulations.* ( 1 ) No person shall enter this area and no vessel or other craft, except vessels of the U.S. Government or vessels duly authorized by the Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Air Station, Alameda, California, shall navigate, anchor or moor in the area described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( 2 ) No person shall enter this area and no vessel without special authorization of the Commander, Twelfth Coast Guard District, shall lie, anchor or moor in the area described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. Vessels may proceed through the entrance channel in process of ordinary navigation or may moor alongside wharves on the Oakland side of the channel.
[26 FR 11201, Nov. 28, 1961, as amended at 27 FR 10484, Oct. 27, 1962. Redesignated at 50 FR 42696, Oct. 22, 1985, and amended at 51 FR 25198, July 11, 1986; 55 FR 3056, Jan. 30, 1990; 62 FR 17557, Apr. 10, 1997]
#### § 325.10 Publicity.

The district engineer will establish and maintain a program to assure that potential applicants for permits are informed of the requirements of this regulation and of the steps required to obtain permits for activities in waters of the United States or ocean waters. Whenever the district engineer becomes aware of plans being developed by either private or public entities which might require permits for implementation, he should advise the potential applicant in writing of the statutory requirements and the provisions of this regulation. Whenever the district engineer is aware of changes in Corps of Engineers regulatory jurisdiction, he will issue appropriate public notices.