alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 9:22-cv-81472-DMM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2022 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 9:22-cv-81472-DMM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2022 Page 2 of 2
#### § 25.301 Scope.

This subpart prescribes the requirements for the administrative settlement of claims against the United States arising out of Coast Guard activities under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
EXHIBIT 12.1AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT CORPORATIONCOMPUTATION IN SUPPORT OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES(Dollars in millions)

|                               |  | Nine Months
          Ended |       |                                    |   |       |  |      |       |      |   |       |  |  
|------------------------------ |  | --------------------------- | ----- | ---------------------------------- | - | ----- |  | ---- | ----- | ---- | - | ----- |  | -
|                               |  | September
          30,     |       | Years
          Ended December 31,
|                               |  | 2007                        |       | 2006                               |   | 2006  |  | 2005 |       | 2004 |   | 2003 
|Earnings:                      |  |                             |       |                                    |   |       |  |      |       |      |   |       |  |  
|Net income                     |  | $                           | 564   |                                    | $ | 453   |  | $    | 622   |      | $ | 415   |  | $
|Income tax provision           |  |                             | 69    |                                    |   | 71    |  |      | 95    |      |   | 50    |  |  
|Interest expense               |  |                             | 1,522 |                                    |   | 1,172 |  |      | 1,614 |      |   | 1,141 |  |  
|                               |  |                             |       |                                    |   |       |  |      |       |      |   |       |  |  
|Total earnings (a)             |  | $                           | 2,155 |                                    | $ | 1,696 |  | $    | 2,331 |      | $ | 1,606 |  | $
|                               |  |                             |       |                                    |   |       |  |      |       |      |   |       |  |  
|Fixed charges -                |  |                             |       |                                    |   |       |  |      |       |      |   |       |  |  
|Interest
        expense (b)   |  | $                           | 1,522 |                                    | $ | 1,172 |  | $    | 1,614 |      | $ | 1,141 |  | $
|                              
|                              
|Ratio of earnings              |  |                             |       |                                    |   |       |  |      |       |      |   |       |  |  
|to fixed
        charges (a/b) |  |                             | 1.42  |                                    |   | 1.45  |  |      | 1.44  |      |   | 1.41  |  |  

Interest expense does not include interest on liabilities recorded under Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Financial Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes  an interpretation
of FASB Statement No. 109 (FIN 48). Credcos policy is to classify such interest in the income tax provision in the Consolidated Statements of Income.

---
0-cr-06239-WPD Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2000 P
0-cr-06239-WPD Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2000 P
STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE: Working with 

Restaurants and Grocery Stores

1. Initiate a strategic planning process

• Assemble the planning team (internal and external champions)

• Identify the expertise required (The OAA Nutrition Program, knowledge of

public health, food safety, knowledge of the local restaurant and food retail

landscape, etc.)

• Host a strategy session with the team – determine goals and objectives of

partnerships

• Establish the target population – evaluate local data to determine

demographic profile, geographic location, nutrition needs, aging services

usage, etc.

2. Conduct a market analysis

• Identify grocery store or restaurant personnel with whom to

meet

• Identify a range of reasonable meal costs

• Establish a physical visit of local restaurants in targeted

communities to identify partnership opportunities

3. Identify a cohort of potential partners and review

collected data

• Issue a Public Notice, Request for Proposals, or other public information,

outlining the partnership opportunity, overview of the program and

programmatic goals

• Identify partners that serve meals within the desired price point or partners

that are willing to negotiate and serve target populations

4. Select and contract with identified

partner

• Collaborate with identified partner and negotiate a mutually

beneficial contract

• Share the following resource with the partner to ensure a broad

understanding of how to engage with the Senior Nutrition

Program network

o Step-by-Step Guide: Working with Restaurants and Grocery

Stores for Meals

5. Develop implementation procedures and launch

partnership

• Review and finalize all product and programmatic specifications in the contract

• Schedule meetings to ensure continued communication

• Establish an implementation timeline and data management systems

• Prepare a protocol for meal delivery or pickup

• Promote the partnership to consumers
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6286

PHILLIP STEPHEN JONES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MARK HENRY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-99-

131-1)

Submitted: May 13, 1999 Decided: May 28, 1999

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Stephen Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Stephen Jones appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Jones’ motion for immediate release is denied. See

Jones v. Henry, No. CA-99-131-L (D. Md. Feb. 23, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Mrs. Charlotte L. WORLEY, Admrx., and C. H. Worley, Jr., a minor, Appellants, v. Ross V. DUNN, Trustee of National Specialty Company, Inc., Bankrupt, et al., Appellees.

No. 13440.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Nov. 10, 1958.

No attorney for appellant.

Charlotte L. Worley, pro se.

W. W. Berry, Nashville, Tenn., on brief for First American Nat. Bank of Nashville.

Robert W. Sturdivant, Nashville, Tenn., on brief for Ross V. Dunn, Trustee, etc.

Before ALLEN, Chief Judge, and SIMONS and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment herein appealed from grew out of proceedings in No. 22,924 in bankruptcy, Middle District of Tennessee, and in Civil Case No. 1378 in the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, which were consolidated for hearing in this court.

The case came on to be heard by the District Court on the motion of the Trustee in Bankruptcy and of the First *356American National Bank of Nashville for judgment on the pleadings and for in-junctive relief, and upon the motions of Mrs. Charlotte L. Worley, individually and as administratrix, and guardian of her minor son, C. H. Worley, Jr., asking for “Judgment in the pleadings” and for injunctive relief.

The court heard the case upon the entire record, including the numerous interrelated records and exhibits filed at the hearing. The court sustained the motions of the Trustee in Bankruptcy and of First American National Bank of Nashville for judgment on the pleadings, denied motions filed by Mrs. Charlotte L. Worley, administratrix, and guardian of her minor son C. H. Worley, Jr., and enjoined Mrs. Worley, individually, as ad-ministratrix or executrix, or on behalf of her minor son C. H. Worley, Jr., from filing any other complaint, petition, action, or other pleadings seeking relief or recovery from the Trustee or the First American National Bank of Nashville upon matters already litigated and adjudicated herein between the parties.

The history of these cases is sufficiently described in the following adjudications of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, namely: United States v. Worley, 213 F.2d 509, certiorari denied 348 U.S. 917, 75 S.Ct. 302, 99 L.Ed. 720, rehearing denied 348 U.S. 940, 75 S.Ct. 362, 99 L.Ed. 736; Worley v. Elliott, 231 F.2d 526, affirming a judgment of the Referee in Bankruptcy and of the District Court, certiorari denied 352 U.S. 855, 77 S.Ct. 82, 1 L.Ed.2d 66, rehearing denied 352 U.S. 937, 77 S.Ct. 229, 1 L.Ed.2d 170; Worley v. National Specialty Company, Inc., 243 F.2d 165, certiorari denied 355 U.S. 844, 78 S.Ct. 66, 2 L.Ed.2d 53; also, Worley v. Dunn, 252 F.2d 712, which affirms the judgment of the District Court attacked in five appeals by the same parties, and reviews the various proceedings out of which the appeals arose. It is unnecessary to reiterate the facts, findings thereon, and the conclusions as to questions decided and redecided and set forth in detail in the above cited cases.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed upon the grounds and for the reasons stated in its order entered November 6, 1957, and in its order entered November 13, 1957.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN ADMIRALTY

CASE NO. 0:22-cv-61548-RKA

BROWARD SHIPYARD, INC.

Plaintiff,

vs.

M/Y SMILING DOG, a 1991 105-foot

Chediek motor yacht registered in the 

Cayman Islands as Official Number 748072,

its engines, tackle, furniture, furnishings, and 

appurtenances, including a 17-foot Boston Whaler

tender, in rem; and SMILING DOG, LTD., 

a Cayman Islands company, in personam

Defendants.

__________________________________________/

MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER DIRECTING THE

CLERK OF COURT TO ISSUE A WARRANT OF ARREST IN REM

Pursuant to Supplemental Admiralty Rule C(3)(a)(i) and Local Admiralty 

Rule C, Plaintiff, Broward Shipyard, Inc., moves the Court for an Order directing the 

Clerk to issue a Warrant of Arrest in rem for the M/Y Smiling Dog and states:

1. Broward Shipyard, Inc. filed a Verified Complaint [ECF No. 1] against

M/Y Smiling Dog, a 1991 105-foot Chediek motor yacht registered in the Cayman 

Islands as Official Number 748072, its engines, tackle, furniture, furnishings, and 

appurtenances, including a 17-foot Boston Whaler tender (hereinafter “Vessel”),

which is currently at Broward Shipyard, Inc.’s facility in Broward County and within 

Case 0:22-cv-61548-RKA Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 1 of 3
2

the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida.

2. Broward Shipyard, Inc. has a preferred maritime lien for necessaries

against the Vessel and seeks to foreclose its lien pursuant to federal statute and 

general maritime law. See the Verified Complaint [ECF No. 1].

3. Broward Shipyard, Inc. has contemporaneously filed the other motions 

and documents with the Court that are necessary for effecting the Vessel’s arrest.

4. Broward Shipyard, Inc. must serve a Warrant of Arrest In Rem on the 

Vessel to effect service of process on the in rem Defendant for the statutory maritime 

lien foreclosure action.

5. A proposed Order Directing the Clerk to Issue the Warrant of Arrest In 

Rem and a proposed Warrant of Arrest in rem are attached hereto as Exhibits “1” and 

“2” respectively.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Broward Shipyard, Inc., moves the Court to issue 

an Order directing the Clerk to issue a Warrant of Arrest In Rem, and direct the U.S. 

Marshal to serve the Warrant on the Vessel.

Dated: August 22, 2022.

Respectfully submitted,

STROUP & MARTIN, P.A.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

119 Southeast 12th Street

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

Telephone: (954) 462-8808

E-mail: fmartin@strouplaw.com

E-mail: jstroup@strouplaw.com

Case 0:22-cv-61548-RKA Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 2 of 3
3

By: /s/ Farris J. Martin III

FARRIS J. MARTIN III

Florida Bar No. 879916

JAMES W. STROUP

Florida Bar No. 842117

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has 

been electronically filed with this Court’s CM/ECF docketing system this 22nd day of 

August, 2022.

By: /s/ Farris J. Martin III

FARRIS J. MARTIN III

Florida Bar No. 879916

Case 0:22-cv-61548-RKA Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2022 Page 3 of 3
#### § 10.3 Post-employment activities.

Governors are subject to the restrictions on the post-employment activities of special Government employees imposed by 18 U.S.C. 207. Guidance concerning post-employment restrictions applicable to Governors may be obtained in accordance with section 10.2(b).
#### HENRY C. KING and another, Appellants, *v.*MICHAEL GALVIN, Respondent.

*Estoppel—election of remedies—when parriy bound by.*

This action was brought to recover the value of certain property belonging to the ' plaintiff, taken by the defendant, a judgment creditor of one Phillips, ón an execution issued against him, as being his property. After the commencement of this action Phillips was declared a bankrupt, and his assignee sued the plaintiffs for property of Phillips fraudulently purchased of him by them, and recovered judgment against them therefor. In this proceeding- plaintiffs claimed and were allowed to deduct from such claim against them, whatever the sheriff, by virtue of the execution against Phillips, had taken from them, such deduction including the property sought to be recovered in this action. *Held,*that the plaintiffs, having been allowed the value of the property taken by the defendant in the suit brought by the assignee of Phillips, could not now deny that such property belonged to him; and that this action could not be maintained.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered upon a verdict directed by the court, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, made upon the judge’s minutes.

*J. M.*Carroll, for the appellants.

*J. E.*Dewey, for the respondent.

Opinions by

Learned, P. J., and James, J.

Present — Learned, P. J., Boardman and James, JJ.

James, J.,

dissented.

Judgment and order affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Adams Resources & Energy,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 (the
"Report"), I, K. S. Adams, Jr., 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/ K. S. Adams, Jr.
--------------------
K. S. Adams, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
May 13, 2004

                                      -33-
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
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Express Credit Corporation (the
Company) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
Christopher S. Forno, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |     |                                                                                                                                                         
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (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/ Christopher S. Forno
|                         | 

|       |                        
|------ | -----------------------
|Name:  | Christopher S. Forno   
|Title: | Chief Executive Officer
|Date:  | August 11, 2006        

The foregoing certification
is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is not being
filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), or otherwise subject to liability under that section. This
certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any
filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act except
to the extent that this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and specifically incorporated
by reference in any such filing.

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4960

To extend the King Range National Conservation Area boundary in the

State of California to include the Mill Creek Forest.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 25, 2000

Mr. THOMPSON of California introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To extend the King Range National Conservation Area

boundary in the State of California to include the Mill

Creek Forest.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘King Range National

5 Conservation Area Boundary Expansion Act of 2000’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 The Congress finds the following:

8 (1) The public lands within the King Range

9 National Conservation Area, California, are a unique
2

•HR 4960 IH

1 public resource encompassing a spectacular meeting

2 of land and sea.

3 (2) The Mill Creek Forest adjacent to the King

4 Range National Conservation Area has long been

5 recognized as a critical component of the Mattole

6 River watershed.

7 (3) The Mill Creek Forest and adjacent lands

8 administered by the Bureau of Land Management,

9 comprising 2,515 acres of public lands, contain sig10 nificant stands of old-growth Douglas fir that sup11 port habitat for threatened species and endangered

12 species, including the northern spotted owl, red13 tailed frog, and Olympic salamander.

14 (4) The linkage of the Mill Creek Forest to the

15 King Range National Conservation Area will en16 hance outdoor recreational opportunities to the

17 northern portion of the King Range and the coastal

18 section of the Mattole River.

19 (5) Extending the King Range boundary to in20 clude the Mill Creek Forest will also enhance man21 agement of the natural resources by connecting the

22 headwaters of Mill Creek to the Mattole River.
3

•HR 4960 IH

1 SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF KING RANGE NATIONAL CONSERVA2 TION AREA BOUNDARY.

3 Section 9 of the Act of October 21, 1970 (84 Stat.

4 1067), is amended by adding at the end the following:

5 ‘‘(d) In addition to the lands described in subsections

6 (a) and (c), there are hereby added to the King Range

7 National Conservation Area the lands identified as the

8 Mill Creek addition on the map entitled ‘King Range Na9 tional Conservation Area Boundary Extension 2000’,

10 dated March 24, 2000.’’.

Æ
§ 187.306 Certificate of title required. ( a ) Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the owner of a vessel must deliver to the office of the State in which the vessel is principally used an application for a certificate of title for the vessel, with the applicable fee, not later than 20 days after the later of— ( 1 ) The date of a transfer of ownership; or
( 2 ) The date the State becomes the State of principal use.
( b ) An application for a certificate of title is not required for— ( 1 ) A documented vessel;
( 2 ) A foreign-documented vessel;
( 3 ) A barge;
( 4 ) A vessel before delivery if the vessel is under construction or completed pursuant to contract; or
( 5 ) A vessel held by a dealer for sale or lease.
( c ) The office may not issue, transfer, or renew a certificate of number for a vessel issued pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12301 unless it has created a certificate of title for the vessel or an application for a certificate for the vessel and the applicable fee have been delivered to the office.