alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:22-cr-20389-RKA Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2022 Page 1 of 7
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cr-20389-RKA Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2022 Page 2 of 7
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cr-20389-RKA Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2022 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:22-cr-20389-RKA Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2022 Page 4 of 7
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cr-20389-RKA Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2022 Page 5 of 7
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cr-20389-RKA Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2022 Page 6 of 7
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cr-20389-RKA Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2022 Page 7 of 7
69442892;1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Civil Case No.: 1:22-cv-22972-RNS/GOODMAN 

CURTIS J. JACKSON, III p/k/a 50 CENT, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ANGELA KOGAN, PERFECTION PLASTIC 

SURGERY, INC. d/b/a PERFECTION PLASTIC 

SURGERY & MEDSPA, and THE SHADE 

ROOM, LLC d/b/a THE SHADE ROOM, 

Defendants. 

________________________________________/ 

JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT 

Pursuant to Local Rule 16.4, Plaintiff Curtis J. Jackson, III p/k/a 50 Cent and Defendants 

Angela Kogan and Perfection Plastic Surgery, Inc. d/b/a Perfection Plastic Surgery & Medspa, by 

and through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby give notice that the parties have reached 

an agreement in principle to settle Mr. Jackson's claims against Defendants in the above-captioned 

action. The parties are in the process of preparing an agreement to finalize and memorialize the 

terms of their settlement. 

Dated: March 24, 2023 

Case 1:22-cv-22972-RNS Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2023 Page 1 of 2
69442892;1 

AKERMAN LLP 

By: /s/ Joseph Rebak

Joseph Rebak 

Florida Bar No. 308668 

Alejandro J. Paz 

Florida Bar No. 1011728 

Three Brickell City Centre 

98 Southeast Seventh Street, Suite 1100 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Tel.: (305) 374-5600 

Fax: (305) 374-5095 

joseph.rebak@akerman.com 

alejandro.paz@akerman.com 

Craig Weiner (pro hac vice) 

Eamon O'Kelly (pro hac vice) 

Reena Jain (pro hac vice) 

Alexander Newman (pro hac vice) 

1251 Avenue of the Americas, 37th Floor 

New York, New York 10020 

Tel.: (212) 880-3800 

Fax: (212) 880-8965 

craig.weiner@akerman.com 

eamon.okelly@akerman.com 

reena.jain@akerman.com 

alexander.newman@akerman.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff Curtis Jackson, III p/k/a 

50 Cent

SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP

By: /s/ Matthew Ceriale

Matthew Ceriale 

Florida Bar No. 1020226 

Mindi M. Richter 

Florida Bar No. 44827 

Bank of America Plaza 

101 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 2800 

Tampa, Florida 33602 

Tel.: (813) 229-7600 

Fax: (813) 229-1660 

mrichter@shumaker.com 

mceriale@shumaker.com 

Darren Heitner 

HEITNER LEGAL, P.L.L.C. 

215 Hendricks Isle 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 

darren@heitnerlegal.com 

Tel.: (954) 558-6999 

Fax: (954) 927-3333 

Counsel for Defendant Angela Kogan and 

Defendant Perfection Plastic Surgery, Inc. 

d/b/a Perfection Plastic Surgery & MedSpa 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 24th day of March 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Joint 

Notice of Settlement was served via the Court’s CM/ECF System upon all counsel of record. 

By: /s/ Joseph Rebak

 Joseph Rebak, Esq. 

Case 1:22-cv-22972-RNS Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2023 Page 2 of 2
us. Department of 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

-. 'n ~ ~ ,,,~ I f - , .'f /: 53 

MEMORANDUM TO DOCKET 2009-0155 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

On October 12, 2010, the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Transportation, accompanied by 

members of their senior staff, met with the Ambassador and other senior representatives of the 

government of Australia, and with the Chief Executive Officer and senior officers of the Virgin 

Blue airline group. The participants discussed the ongoing proceeding involving the application 

for antitrust immunity filed by the Virgin Blue group and Delta Air Lines. 

The Department's General Counsel pOinted out that this is an open, public proceeding, and that 

a summary of this meeting will be placed in the docket. The airline representatives noted that 

they would be filing additional evidentiary material for the Department's consideration, and 

argued the various benefits to be realized from a grant of immunity. 

The Ambassador noted the keen interest that the proceeding held for the government and 

people of Australia, and emphasized the economic significance of aviation links between the 

United States and Australia and the Open Skies Agreement between the two countries.
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.                  

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-3154-EM] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

      ( print page 36140)    

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of an emergency for the State of New Mexico, (FEMA-3154-EM), dated May 10, 2000, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

May 26, 2000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of an emergency for the State of New Mexico is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of May 10, 2000: 

Lincoln and San Miguel Counties for emergency protective measures (Category B) under the Public Assistance program. 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) 

Lacy E. Suiter, 

Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate. 

[FR Doc. 00-14304 Filed 6-6-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6718-02-U
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 Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on April 19, 2000, and April 27, 2000, Organichem Corporation, 33 Riverside Avenue, Rensselaer, New York 12144, made application by letters to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed below: Drug
ScheduleAmphetamine (1100)
IIPentobarbital (2270)
II
 The firm plans to manufacture amphetamine and pentobarbital as a bulk product for distribution to its customers. Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration. Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative (CCR), and must be filed no later than August 7, 2000. Dated: May 25, 2000. John H. King, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 00-14479 Filed 6-7-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
**Exhibit 31(e)1**

**MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 

I, Anthony J. Topazi, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mississippi Power Company;

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)) for the registrant and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

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 functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  August 3, 2006

/s/Anthony J. Topazi

Anthony J. Topazi

President and Chief Executive Officer
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1310 KA 10-00803
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RASHEED MILTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (VINCENT F. GUGINO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. HILLERY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John L. Michalski, A.J.), rendered March 24, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of predatory sexual assault (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, two counts of predatory sexual assault (Penal Law § 130.95 [1] [b]; [3]). Defendant contends that the People committed a Brady violation inasmuch as they failed to inform him that one of the investigating police officers who testified at trial had a second job as a private investigator for an agency that is periodically retained by the law firm representing the victim in a personal injury action arising out of the incident underlying the conviction. We reject that contention. Even assuming, arguendo, that such information constituted Brady material on the ground that it could be used to impeach the officer’s testimony, we conclude that there was no “reasonable possibility that the outcome of the trial would have differed had [that information] been [disclosed]” ( People v Scott , 88 NY2d 888, 891; see People v Vilardi , 76 NY2d 67, 77).

Defendant’s further contention that he was deprived of a fair trial based on prosecutorial misconduct is not preserved for our review ( see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, that contention is without merit. “Reversal on the ground[] of prosecutorial misconduct ‘is mandated only when the conduct has caused such substantial prejudice to the defendant that he [or she] has been denied due process of law’ ” ( People v Rubin , 101 AD2d 71, 77, lv denied 63 NY2d 711), and that is not the case here. We reject defendant’s contention-2- 1310 KA 10-00803

that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Viewing the evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case in totality and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation ( see generally People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 147). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Entered: December 30, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
§ 401.89 Transit refused. ( a ) An officer may refuse to allow a vessel to transit when, ( 1 ) The vessel is not equipped in accordance with §§ 401.5 to 401.19 and subsections (e) to (j) of Schedule I of subpart A of this part when transiting the Canadian waters of the Seaway;
( 2 ) The vessel, its cargo, equipment or machinery are in a condition that will prevent safe or expeditious transit by that vessel; or
( 3 ) The vessel is manned with a crew that is incompetent or inadequate.
( 4 ) The vessel is not in compliance with Transport Canada Marine Safety and Security, flag state and/or classification society regulations.
( b ) [Reserved]
[39 FR 10900, Mar. 22, 1974, as amended at 61 FR 19552, May 2, 1996; 65 FR 52915, Aug. 31, 2000; 77 FR 40805, July 11, 2012; 82 FR 12420, Mar. 3, 2017]
# • SPAS RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 68 Reportable QuantityAdjustment Methyl Bromide Production Wastes 54 FR 41402-41408

October6, 1989 (HSWA Ciuster II) STATE ANALOG IS: FEDERAL ANALOGOUS MORE BROADFEDERAL RCRA STATE EQUIV- STRIN- ER IN REQUIREMENT CITATION CITATION ALENT GENT SCOPE PART 261 -IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE WAC 173-303
SUBPART D - LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES add K131 and K132 to the subgroup "Pesticides" 261;32 9904 

# x APPENDIX III - CHEMICAL ANALYSIS TEST METHODS 

# • add, in alphabetic order, to Table 1, . two compounds and methodsfor their analysis Appendix III 110(3)(f) 

# x APPENDIX VII - BASIS FOR LISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE add, in numeric order, entries for K131 and K132· AppendixVII 082(4) 

### X



# •
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.                  

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with § 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 1, the Federal Emergency Management Agency gives notice that the following meeting will be held: 

# NAME:

Technical Mapping Advisory Council. 

# DATE OF MEETING:

June 1-2, 2000. 

# PLACE:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region III Office, Liberty Square Bldg., 2nd Floor, 105 S. Seventh Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106-3316. 

# TIMES:

8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., both days. 

# PROPOSED AGENDA:

 

1. Call to Order and Announcements. 

2. Action on Minutes of Previous Meetings. 

3. Discussion of Final Annual Report. 

4. New Business. 

5. Adjournment. 

# STATUS:

This meeting is open to the public. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael K. Buckley, P.E., Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., room 421, Washington, DC 20472, telephone (202) 646-2756 or by facsimile at (202) 646-4596. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This meeting is open to the public with limited seating available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the general public who plan to attend the meeting should contact Ms. Sally P. Magee, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., room 442, Washington, DC 20472, telephone (202) 646-8242 or by facsimile at (202) 646-4596 on or before May 29, 2000. 

Minutes of the meeting will be prepared and will be available upon request 30 days after they have been approved by the next Technical Mapping Advisory Council meeting. 

      ( print page 34182)    
Dated: May 22, 2000. 

Michael J. Armstrong, 

Associate Director for Mitigation. 

[FR Doc. 00-13326 Filed 5-25-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6718-04-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                               ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

        In connection with the Quarterly Report of Aceto Corporation, a New York
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Douglas Roth, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

        (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and
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/ Douglas Roth
------------------------
Douglas Roth
Chief Financial Officer
February 9, 2005
§ 147.1114 Platform HARMONY safety zone. ( a ) *Description:* The area within a line 500 meters from each point on the structure's outer edge. The position of the center of the structure is 34°-22′-36′′ N, 120°-10′-03′′ W.
( b ) *Regulation:* No vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone except the following: ( 1 ) an attending vessel;
( 2 ) a vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing; or
( 3 ) a vessel authorized by the Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[CGD11-92-01, 57 FR 9055, Mar. 16, 1992]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6872

REGINALD TERRELL LEACH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD JONES, Superintendent; NORTH CAROLINA

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. Russell A. Eliason, Magistrate Judge. (CA-96-367)

Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 21, 1998

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Terrell Leach, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca Kendrick Cleveland, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Because the parties had consented to the magistrate judge's

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp. 1998),

the magistrate's recommendation entered on April 25, 1997, should

have been an order and judgment of dismissal. In correcting this

oversight, the magistrate judge treated Appellant's objections to

the recommendation as a motion for reconsideration. Because we find

the error, if any, was harmless, we dismiss the appeal.

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We

have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinions and

find no reversible error.* Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Leach v. Jones, No. CA-96-367 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 25 &

May 27, 1997). We also deny Appellant's motions for appointment of

counsel and to proceed in forma pauperis and 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.

DISMISSED