alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Clear Shot Entertainment LLC

Business Name Loan Type Disbursement Date Amount Trans Type Lender Acct #

Clear Shot Entertainment PPP Loan 6/16/2020 $152,602 EFT Celtic Bank 5325

Clear Shot Entertainment EIDL 7/7/2020 $10,000 EFT SBA 5325

Clear Shot Entertainment EIDL 7/13/2020 $149,900 EFT SBA 5325

Clear Shot Entertainment PPP Loan 2/24/2021 $133,750 ACH In Itria Ventures LLC 5325

Funded Loans 

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 204-14 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2023 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of the Petition of SOPHIA R. C. FURNISS AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS, TO VACATE AN ASSESSMENT.

*Chapter*388, *Laws of*1858; *chap.*312, *Lams of 1874—when application to vacate assessment camrwt be made under.*

When an assessment has been made to pay the compensation awarded for land taken to open streets in the city of Hew York, in pursuance of 2 Revised Laws of 1813, page 409, section 178, as amended by chapter 483, 'Laws of 1862, an application to vacate it under chapter 338, Laws of 1858, as amended by chapter 312 of 1874, can only be made for fraud or substantial error, in cases where no investigation could be had in the first instance or in the proceeding itself.

The statute does not apply to assessments imposed when no fraud is alleged, and when no error is urged other than that the land assessed is not subject to assessment.

*In matter of Aaron Arnold*(Court of Appeals, Feb. 1875) followed.

Appeal from an order made at the Special Term, denying an application to vacate an assessment for opening Twelfth avenue from Fifty-ninth to One Hundred and Thirty-third street; and for opening One Hundred and Fourth, One Hundred and Fifth and One Hundred and Sixth streets, from Eighth avenue west to the public drive. The petitioner alleged that the lots were all below high-water mark, and actually covered by water, being in the navigable portion of the Hudson river, and that for this reason they were not subject to assessment.

*Daniel Lord, Jr.,*for the appellants.

*E. Delafield Smith*and *William Barnes,*for the respondent.

Opinion

by Brady, J.

Daniels, J., concurred.

Order affirmed.
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: 
 HomeADR2022-02-04T07:29:27-05:00						Brief History of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Federal GovernmentIn the 1990’s the federal government promoted a new concept in effective government which encouraged cooperation, collaborative problem solving and the use of alternative dispute resolution to resolve claims by and against the government. In 1996 Congress passed the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA) which requires each agency to promotion and use alternative dispute resolution methods to resolve disputes, designate a senior official to be the agency “Dispute Resolution Specialist,” and to adopt an agency specific ADR policy.
In 1998, President Clinton issued an order requiring that each federal agency develop a policy to promote greater use of ADR in administrative disputes. The Interagency ADR Working Group was established as a resource for developing ADR programs and sharing information to support the use of ADR.Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution in the Federal GovernmentToday federal agencies use ADR as a valuable tool for preventing and resolving a broad spectrum of internal and external conflicts. The result is a more pro-active, effective, collaborative, and transparent federal government; a more productive and satisfied federal workforce; a more efficient procurement process; and a problem-solving perspective to a myriad of conflicts, all of which improve the functioning and accessibility of government and directly benefit the public.**New Resources**Full Report**New! Administrative Conference of the United States** **Report on ADR in Agency Adjudication**In 2021, the Administrative Conference of the United States published a report on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Agency Administrative Programs.  This report studies how federal agencies use and might better use different types of ADR —including mediation, conciliation, facilitation, factfinding, minitrials, arbitration, and the use of ombuds—in the programs Congress has entrusted them to administer. It also addresses the use of ADR to resolve disputes before the initiation of a formal agency adjudicative proceeding or litigation involving the agency’s enforcement authority. Click here to read the full report.Full Report Copyright 2022 ADR.gov | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  FOIA  |  Section 508
#### § 66.01-10 Characteristics.

The characteristics of a private aid to navigation must conform to those prescribed by the United States Aids to Navigation System set forth in subpart B of part 62 of this subchapter.

[USCG-2000-7466, 68 FR 68238, Dec. 8, 2003]
#### § 6.19-1 Primary responsibility.

Nothing contained in this part shall be construed as relieving the masters, owners, operators, and agents of vessels or other waterfront facilities from their primary responsibility for the protection and security of such vessels or waterfront facilities, including any data, information, network, program, system, or other digital infrastructure thereon or therein.

[E.O. 14116, 89 FR 13973, Feb. 26, 2024]
CANCELLATION OF DEBT AND ASSIGNMENT


AGREEMENT FOR CMSA OF FRESNO, CA





THIS AGREEMENT made as of the 27th day of November 2003.








BETWEEN:








DAVID PARKER , of 4629 Crestline Road, Ft. Worth, Texas 76107








AND








eRXSYS, INC. , of 18662 Mac Arthur Blvd., Suite #200-15,


Irvine, California, 92612








WHEREAS :





A. As of August 31, 2003, David Parker ("Parker") is owed $140,193 by eRXSYS, Inc., (the "Company") and this debt is represented on the financial statements of the Company for the nine month period ended August 2003 as "Advances due to a shareholder" (the "Debt").





B. The Company by way of an assignment by RxSystems, Inc. on May 27, 2003, is the holder of a License Agreement (hereinafter "License") issued by RTIN on March 19, 2002, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which includes, in part, the sub-market identified as Fresno, California.








C. The Company and Parker desire to enter into an agreement whereby the Company will assign to Parker the License for the specific CMSA (Consolidated Statistical Metropolitan Area) of Fresno, California in exchange for Parker cancelling the Debt owed to him by the Company, including any accrued interest owing since the last financial statement through the date of this agreement and assignment.





NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES THAT in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants hereinafter set-forth, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows:





1.    The Company hereby transfers, assigns, and conveys all its rights in the License represented and attached hereto as Exhibit A for the CMSA


of Fresno, California. This conveyance is limited to the CMSA of Fresno, California.




1







2.   In consideration for the assignment described in Item 1, Parker hereby releases and forever discharges the Company from any and all liability


on the Debt, including any accrued interest owing since the last financial statement through the date of this agreement and assignment.





3.   The Company agrees to continue to make all payments owed under the license agreement, including those owed on the transferred Fresno,


California market, until the current existing obligation due to the licensor, RTIN, for this license regarding the CMSA of Fresno is fully paid.




This agreement shall be considered a binding agreement and an immediate assignment of rights and discharge of debt under Nevada law.








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed on this 27th day of November, 2003





eRXSYS, Inc.





A.J. LaSota /s/ David Parker


By: By:David Parker


Its:  President




2
cool ex 

M. Anne Swanson 

T: + 1 202 776 2534 

aswanson@cooley.com 

January 8, 2015 

James H. Williams 

Manager 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Officec 

AFS-80 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Dear Mr. Williams: 

Enclosed please find an exemption application filed on behalf of PrecisionHawk, Inc. under 

Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and 14 C.F.R. Part 11 to allow 

commercial operations of unmanned aircraft for precision aerial survey. 1 

MAS:taf 

Enclosures 

cc: Robert Pappas 

Jake Troutman 

Dean Griffith, Esquire 

Thuy H. Cooper 

Christopher Dean, CEO, PrecisionHawk 

Timothy Ravich, General Counsel, PrecisionHawk 

1 Confidential manuals associated with this request, which are exempt from disclosure under the 

Freedom of Information Act, are being filed under separate cover. 

1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400 T: (202) 842-7800 F: (202) 842-7899 WWW.COOLEY.COM
University of Texas Medical Branch 

îìîïChronic Disease Self-Management Education Program Grantee 

Goals 

The overall purposes of this 4-year grant are to: 

Goal 1: Develop capacity to increase the number of older adults and adults with disabilities who 

participate in evidence-based chronic disease self-management education (CDSME) and selfmanagement support programs to empower them to better manage their chronic conditions. 

Goal 2: Identify and implement one or more robust strategies that will promote the sustainability of 

evidence-based self-management education and self-management support programs. 

Strategies and Activities 

The grantee and its partners will: 

ξ Build infrastructure to implement evidence-based CDSME & self-management support programs. 

ξ Advance strategies to recruit aging participants from Galveston, Brazoria & Harris Counties. 

ξ Take action to advance project sustainability, scalability, and replicability.

ξ Scale up the interventions through documenting the model and disseminating lessons learned. 

Proposed Interventions 

ξ Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (CDSMP) (remote, in-person, English & Spanish) 

ξ Diabetes Self-Management Program (DSMP) (remote, in-person, English & Spanish) 

ξ Health Coaches for Hypertension Control (HCHC) (remote, in-person, English & Spanish) 

ξ Toolkit for Active Living with Chronic Conditions (self-guided, phone, English & Spanish)

ξ Walk with Ease (WWE) (self-guided, in-person, English & Spanish)

ξ Geri-Fit (remote, in-person, English)

Prevention and Public Health Fund 2023, effective May 1, 2023 

1 of 2
Partnerships 

To achieve the goals of the grant, grantee will collaborate with the following key partners: 

ξ Galveston Aging Care Network 

ξ Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at University of Texas Medical Branch

ξ Hope Clinic 

ξ St. Vincent's House 

Anticipated Results 

The grantee and its partners propose to achieve the following results: 

ξ Partners incorporate CDSME and self-management support programs in the treatment of chronic diseases. 

ξ Improved capacity of project personnel to implement the program. 

ξ Engage 2,464 participants in evidence-based programs, with 516 participants reached annually.

ξ Support 1,548 participants in attending at least 60% of program sessions for a retention rate of 75%.

ξ At least 50% of program completers will experience improvement in knowledge and practices. 

Contact: 

Hani Serag, MD, MPH 

Assistant Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, UTMB 

haserag@utmb.edu 

For more information: 

Administration for Community Living 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services Washington, DC 20201 

http://www.acl.gov 

Prevention and Public Health Fund 2023, effective May 1, 2023 

2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer** 
**Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002**
In Connection with the Quarterly Report of Heartland Oil and Gas Corp. on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kamal Abdallah, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 registrant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

August 19, 2008

 

 

 

 

 

/S/    KAMAL ABDALLAH

 

 

 

 

 

 

**Kamal Abdallah**      
**Chief Financial Officer**
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1448]



[[Page 3475]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CA-610-09-0777-42]


Meeting of the California Desert District Advisory Council

SUMMARY:  Notice is hereby given, in accordance with Public Laws 92-463 
and 94-579, that the California Desert District Advisory Council to the 
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, will 
participate in a field tour of the BLM-administered public lands on 
Friday, February 25, 2000, and meet in formal session on Saturday, 
February 26 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The Saturday meeting will be held in 
the Mirage East Conference Room at the Miracle Springs Hotel and Spa, 
located at 10625 Palm Drive, Desert Hot Springs, California. To reach 
the hotel, take the Palm Drive exit off Interstate 10 and drive north 
approximately six miles to the hotel, which will be on the left (west) 
side of Palm Drive.
    The Council and interested members of the public will assemble for 
the field tour at the Miracle Springs Hotel parking lot at 7:15 a.m. 
and depart at 7:30 a.m. Members of the public are welcome to 
participate in the tour, but should plan on providing their own 
transportation, drinks, and lunch.
    The Saturday meeting agenda will include discussions on the 
bioregional planning efforts and the proposed National Monument 
designation for the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains.
    All Desert District Advisory Council meetings are open to the 
public. Time for public comment may be made available by the Council 
Chairman during the presentation of various agenda items, and is 
scheduled at the beginning of the meeting for topics not on the agenda.
    Written comments may be filed in advance of the meeting for the 
California Desert District Advisory Council, c/o Bureau of Land 
Management, Public Affairs Office, 6221 Box Springs Boulevard, 
Riverside, California 92507-0714. Written comments also are accepted at 
the time of the meeting and, if copies are provided to the recorder, 
will be incorporated into the minutes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Doran Sanchez at (909) 697-5220, BLM 
California Desert District External Affairs.

    Dated: January 14, 2000.
Alan Stein,
Assistant District Manager.
[FR Doc. 00-1448 Filed 1-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-U
#### FRANKLIN E. CLEMONS, Respondent, *v.*WASHINGTON DAVIS, Appellant.

*False impiisanment—Special damages—when must he alleged—Amendments*— *when allowed.*

This action was brought to recover damages for the false imprisonment of the plaintiff by the defendant. Upon the trial, the plaintiff was allowed to prove the effect of his arrest upon his business, although no special damages were alleged in the complaint. *Held,*that the judgment would not be reversed for this error; that as special damages do not constitute a distinct cause of action, but only tend to increase the recovery, that the complaint could be amended at the trial by adding the necessary allegations, and that the General Term would, in furtherance of justice, consider it so amended.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered, upon, the verdict of a jury.

*J. L. Baker,*for the appellant.

*King & Montgomery,*for the respondent.

*

 Van Ness v. Bush, 14 Abb., 33 ; Bowdoin v. Colman, 6 Duer, 183; Bate v. Graham, 11 N. Y., 237.

Opinions by

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

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

James, J.,

dissented.

Judgment affirmed.
#### THOMAS W. LENTON, an Infant, by JOHN LENTON, his Guardian, Respondent, *v.*C. GODFREY GUNTHER, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for new trial.

The action was brought to recover damages caused by the alleged negligent act of the defendant’s servant in throwing a jet of steam suddenly upon the plaintiff’s horse and causing him to run away. The General Term was of opinion that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, and affirmed the judgment and order.

*Winfield & Leeds,*for the appellant.

*D. P. Barnard,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Gilbert, J.

Present — Barnard, P. J., and Gilbert, JJ.

Judgment and order denying a new trial affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1999
<CASH>                                             160
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,956
<ALLOWANCES>                                       434
<INVENTORY>                                      9,815
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,215
<PP&E>                                          38,737
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,261
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,867
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,745
<BONDS>                                          8,489
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,164
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,351)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,867
<SALES>                                         19,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,100
<CGS>                                           13,241
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,666
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 185
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,249
<INCOME-TAX>                                       487
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                762
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       762
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:22-cv-22902-KMM

SILVIA CEILO GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF THE UNITED STATES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon United State Magistrate Judge Lauren F. 

Louis’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 9). On September 14, 2022, this Court 

referred pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Louis. See ECF No. 4. Thereafter, the Defendants 

filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint With Prejudice (“Motion”) (ECF No. 8). On April 25, 

2023, Magistrate Judge Louis issued the R&R, recommending that the Motion be GRANTED. 

R&R at 2–3. No objections to the R&R were filed, and the time to do so has now passed. The 

matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. 

The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). 

The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.” Fed. 

R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific 

objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 

784 (11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general 

objection to the report” to warrant de novo review. Id. 

Case 1:22-cv-22902-KMM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

Yet when a party has failed to object or has not properly objected to the magistrate judge’s 

findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in 

order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL 

12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 

2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge “evaluate[s] portions of the 

R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” (citing Davis v. Apfel, 93 F. 

Supp. 2d 1313, 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2000))).

In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends granting the 

Motion. See generally R&R. Namely, Magistrate Judge Louis states that Plaintiff’s Application 

for Naturalization “was adjudicated on January 17, 2023.” Id. at 2. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge 

Louis concludes that the “case is now moot.” Id. The Court agrees.

Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the pertinent portions 

of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND 

ADJUDGED that:

1. Magistrate Judge Louis’s R&R (ECF No. 9) is ADOPTED;

2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Mootness (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED;

3. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this _____ day of May 2023.

K. MICHAEL MOORE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

c: All counsel of record

10th

Case 1:22-cv-22902-KMM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 2 of 2