alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO: 0:22-CV-61553-WPD

CRUZ VALDIVIESO FIGUERA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALL VIP CARE, INC., &

LIZ VELAZQUEZ McKINNON,

Defendants.

__________________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION LEAVE FOR WITNESS ANGELA 

MELENDEZ TO APPEAR TELEPHONCALLY OR BY ZOOM AT TRIAL

This matter coming before the Court on the Defendants Motion to For Leave for Witness 

Angela Melendez to Appear Telephonically or by Zoom for Trial and the Court having reviewed 

the Court file and hearing argument of counsel, it is therefore,

Ordered that the Defendants motion is GRANTED and that Angela Melendez may appear 

telephonically at the Court’s designated phone number of __________________ or by way of 

Zoom, via access code ____________________________ and password 

_______________________.

Ordered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida on ___________________

By: _______________________________

WILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS

District Court Judge

Cc:

Brian Howard Pollock, Esquire, Brian@fairlawattorney.com

RANDY M. GOLDBERG, ESQUIRE, RMGEsquire@gmail.com

Case 0:22-cv-61553-WPD Document 100-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/17/2023 Page 1 of 1
# Research Summit – Washington, DCAgenda

## Schedule – Day 1, Monday, September 16, 2019

## Schedule – Day 2, Tuesday, September 17, 2019

2 | Page

# image1.jpg
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-10014-CR-GAYLES/TORRES

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

WILLIAM MATEU,

 Defendant. 

/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’ Report 

and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motions (“Report”). [ECF No. 49]. On October 25, 2022, Defendant filed his Motion to Dismiss the Indictment. [ECF No. 18]. On September 12, 2023, Defendant filed his Motion in Limine and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. [ECF No. 38]. On September 28, 2023, Defendant filed his Motion to Suppress Statements. [ECF No. 41]. On October 10, 

2023, the at-issue Motions were referred to Judge Torres. [ECF No. 43]. Judge Torres’ Report recommends that the Court deny all three Motions. On November 16, 2023, Defendant filed his Notice 

of No Objections to the Report and Recommendation. [ECF No. 50].

A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection

is made are accorded de novo review if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the 

party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed.

R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection 

is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, 

Case 4:22-cr-10014-DPG Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 

781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). 

This Court finds no clear error with Judge Torres’ well-reasoned analysis and agrees that 

the Motions must be denied.

Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

(1) Judge Torres’ Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motions [ECF No. 49] 

is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference;

(2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, [ECF No. 18], is DENIED;

(3) Defendant’s Motion in Limine and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, [ECF No. 

38], is DENIED; and

(4) Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Statements, [ECF No. 41], is DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 20th day of November, 2023. 

________________________________

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cr-10014-DPG Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2023 Page 2 of 2
#### JOHN LANG, Appellant, *v.*JOSHUA BROWN, Respondent.

*Perpetuating testimony*— Discovery — *Power of county judge.*

The provisions of the Revised.Statutes relating to the perpetuating of testimony are still in force.

The word “ discovery,” as used in the Revised Statutes, was never applied to the perpetuation of testimony.

Powers of county judge defined.

Appeal from an order made by the county judge of Kings county, dismissing the proceedings instituted to perpetuate the testimony of one Joshua Brown in the, above entitled action.

The above entitled action was pending in the Court of Common Pleas for the city and county of New York, and an order was made by the judge of such court, directing Joshua Brown to appear before the county judge of Kings county to be examined, that his testimony might be perpetuated for such action.

The motion to dismiss the proceedings was made before the county judge of Kings county, on the grounds that the justice of the Common Pleas of New York had no power to make the order, and that the statute relating to the perpetuation of testimony had been repealed by the Code of Procedure.

*Abraham*Kling, for the appellant.

*John 11.*Bergen, for the respondent.

Barnard, P. J.:

The judges of the Court of Common Pleas are county judges. *(Matter of*Morgan, 56 N. Y., 629.) County judges are clothed with the powers which a judge of the Court of Common Pleas, being of the degree of counselor of the Supreme Court and acting as a Supreme Court commissioner, could exercise. (Judiciary act, Laws of 1847, p. 638, § 27.) Such an officer can perform the duties of a Supreme Court justice at chambers.

By the Revised Statutes such an officer can perpetuate testimony. ( 2 R. S. [Edm. ed.], 414, § 33.) In all cases where an application *257is made to an officer authorized to take the testimony, he may make the order returnable before any other officer authorized to take the examination, in the county where the witness resides. The county judge of Kings county is such an officer.

I can discover nothing upon which a claim can be based, that the provision of the Revised Statutes as to perpetuation of testimony is repealed. It is not in terms repealed. Section 389 of the Code has no reference to it. “No action to obtain discovery under oath in aid of the' prosecution or defense of another action shall be allowed, nor shall any examination of a party be had on behalf of the adverse party, except in the manner prescribed in this chapter.”

Discovery had a definite meaning under the Revised Statutes. Chancery could compel it, and the Supreme Court also could in certain cases. It never was applied to the perpetuation of testimony, and I think this section was intended to have no effect further than to abolish all actions and proceedings for a discovery which existed at the passage of the Code.

I think the order should be reversed on both grounds, with costs.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Tappen and Taloott, JJ.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Case 0:00-cr-06024-PAS Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2000 Page 1 of 1
#### § 167.203 In the approaches to Chesapeake Bay: Southern approach.

(a) A separation line connects the following geographical positions:

| Latitude | Longitude |
| --- | --- |
| 36°50.33′ N | 75°46.29′ W. |
| 36°52.90′ N | 75°51.52′ W. |
| 36°55.96′ N | 75°54.97′ W. |

(b) A separation line connects the following geographical positions:

| Latitude | Longitude |
| --- | --- |
| 36°55.11′ N | 75°55.23′ W. |
| 36°52.35′ N | 75°52.12′ W. |
| 36°49.70′ N | 75°46.80′ W. |

(c) A separation line connects the following geographical positions:

| Latitude | Longitude |
| --- | --- |
| 36°49.52′ N | 75°46.94′ W. |
| 36°52.18′ N | 75°52.29′ W. |
| 36°54.97′ N | 75°55.43′ W. |

(d) A separation line connects the following geographical positions:

| Latitude | Longitude |
| --- | --- |
| 36°54.44′ N | 75°56.09′ W. |
| 36°51.59′ N | 75°52.92′ W. |
| 36°48.87′ N | 75°47.42′ W. |

(e) A traffic lane for inbound traffic is established between the separation lines described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

(f) A traffic lane for outbound traffic is established between the separation lines described in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.

(g) A deep-water route is established between the separation lines described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. The following vessels should use the deep-water route established in paragraph (g) of this section when bound for Chesapeake Bay from sea or to sea from Chesapeake Bay:

(1) Deep draft vessels (drafts greater than 13.5 meters/45 feet in fresh water); and

(2) Naval aircraft carriers.

(h) It is recommended that a vessel using the deep-water route established in paragraph (g) of this section—

(1) Announce its intention on VHF-FM Channel 16 as it approaches Chesapeake Bay Southern Approach Lighted Whistle Buoy CB on the south end, or Chesapeake Bay Junction Lighted Buoy CBJ on the north end of the route;

(2) Avoid, as far as practicable, overtaking other vessels operating in the deep-water route; and

(3) Keep as near to the outer limit of the route which lies on the vessel's starboard side as is safe and practicable.

(i) Vessels other than those listed in paragraph (d) of this section should not use the deep-water route.

[USCG-2010-0718, 75 FR 77535, Dec. 13, 2010]
§ 955.15 Discovery. ( a ) The parties are encouraged to engage in voluntary discovery procedures. In connection with any deposition or other discovery procedure, the Board may issue any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, and those orders may include limitations on the scope, method, time and place for discovery, and provisions for protecting the secrecy of confidential information or documents. Except in connection with motions to compel or for a protective order, discovery requests and responses should not be filed with the Board.
( b ) ( 1 ) The Board may limit the frequency or extent of use of discovery methods described in these rules. In doing so, generally the Board will consider whether: ( i ) The discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;
( ii ) The party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the case to obtain the information sought; or
( iii ) The discovery is unduly burdensome and expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, limitations on the parties' resources, and the importance of the issues at stake.
( 2 ) The parties are required to make a good faith effort to resolve objections to discovery requests informally. A party receiving an objection to a discovery request, or a party which believes that another party's response to a discovery request is incomplete or entirely absent, may file a motion to compel a response, but such a motion must include a representation that the moving party has tried in good faith, prior to filing the motion, to resolve the matter informally. The motion to compel shall include a copy of each discovery request at issue and the response, if any.
( c ) If a party fails to appear for a deposition, after being served with a proper notice, or fails to serve answers or objections to interrogatories, requests for admission of facts, or requests for the production or inspection of documents, after proper service, the party seeking discovery may request that the Board impose appropriate rulings or sanctions.
[74 FR 20592, May 5, 2009, as amended at 80 FR 31305, June 2, 2015]
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,




AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In connection with the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 of AMERCO (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2010 (the “Report”), I, Jason A. Berg, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, 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.








AMERCO,





a Nevada corporation





/s/ Jason A. Berg





Jason A. Berg


Principal Financial Officer and


Chief Accounting Officer


Date:  August 4, 2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-cr-20508-PCH/Becerra-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

FERNANDO CLAVERIA-MARTINEZ,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING R&R AND ADJUDICATING DEFENDANT 

GUILTY

THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra’s 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on Change of Plea [ECF No. 119], which was entered on 

March 13, 2023. In the R&R, Judge Becerra found that the Defendant Fernando Claveria-Martinez

freely and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty as to Counts I and VI of the Superseding Indictment, 

which charge Defendant with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, 

in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 846; and with possession of a firearm in 

furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(c).

Magistrate Judge Becerra recommends that this Court accept Defendant’s guilty plea, that 

Defendant be adjudicated guilty of Counts I and VI, and that a sentencing hearing be conducted 

for final disposition of this matter. The Court has reviewed Judge Becerra’s R&R, no objections 

have been filed, and the Court has been advised that no objections will be filed. Therefore, based 

on a de novo review of the evidence presented, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that (1) Magistrate Judge Becerra’s R&R on Change of 

Plea is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED in its entirety; (2) the Court accepts Defendant’s plea of 

guilty, and Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty as to Counts I and VI of the Superseding 

Case 1:22-cr-20508-PCH Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/15/2023 Page 1 of 2
Indictment; and (3) a sentencing hearing before the Honorable Paul C. Huck is set for Friday, 

June 2, 2023, at 9:00 AM. Counsel are instructed to inform the Court of any scheduling 

conflicts as soon as possible.

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida on March 14, 2023.

PAUL C. HUCK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies provided to:

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra

Counsel of record

Case 1:22-cr-20508-PCH Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/15/2023 Page 2 of 2
#### § 101-25.402 Motor vehicles.

Replacement of motor vehicles shall be in accordance with the standards prescribed in § 101-38.402.

[53 FR 11848, Apr. 11, 1988]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER00-2565-000]

Take notice that on May 22, 2000, New Century Services, Inc. (NCS), on behalf of Southwestern Public Service Company (SPS), tendered for filing an unexecuted Service Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service and an unexecuted Network Operating Agreement between Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Golden Spread) and SPS under the open-access transmission tariff filed by NCS, on behalf of the Utility Operating Company Subsidiaries of New Century Energies, Inc.

NCS requests waiver of the Commission's 60-day notice requirements so that the enclosed agreement can become effective on April 20, 2000.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before June 12, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-14144  Filed 6-5-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 23.1

 

 

 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of DirectorsLuna Gold Corp.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-108897) on Form S-8 of Luna Gold Corp. of our report dated March 22, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Luna Gold Corp. as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 and for the period from January 20, 2003 (inception of new business) to December 31, 2004, which report appears in the December 31, 2004, annual report on Form 10-KSB of Luna Gold Corp.

 

/s/ "KPMG LLP"

Chartered Accountants

Vancouver, CanadaMarch 22, 2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

----
EPA Meeting with Petroleum Equipment I nstitute February 1 , 2012
**Attendees:** EPA OUST: Liz McDermott, Linda Gerber , Paul Miller, Tim Roberts, Erin Knighton, Cho Yi Kwan , Dave Hamnett , Tim Smith Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI) : Robert Renkes
At this meeting EPA and the PEI discussed the proposed changes to the UST regulations . The discussion focused on the proposed walk through inspections, industry standards and codes of practice and flow restrictors.
§ 778.9 How does the Postal Service receive and respond to comments? ( a ) The Postal Service follows the procedures in § 778.10 if: ( 1 ) A state office or official is designated to act as a single point of contact between a state process and all federal agencies, and
( 2 ) That office or official transmits a state process recommendation for a facility project action of a category selected under § 778.6.
( b ) ( 1 ) The single point of contact is not obligated to transmit comments from state, areawide, regional or local officials and entities where there is no state process recommendation.
( 2 ) If a state process recommendation is transmitted by a single point of contact, all comments from state, areawide, regional, and local officials and entities that differ from it must also be transmitted.
( c ) If a state has not established a process, or does not submit a state process recommendation, state, areawide, regional and local officials and entities may submit comments directly to the Postal Service.
( d ) If a facility project action is not selected for a state process, state, areawide, regional and local officials and entities may submit comments directly to the Postal Service. In addition, if a state process recommendation for a nonselected facility project action is transmitted to the Postal Service by the single point of contact, the Postal Service follows the procedures of § 778.10.
( e ) The Postal Service considers comments which do not constitute a state process recommendation submitted under these regulations and for which the Postal Service is not required to apply the procedures of § 778.10 when such comments are provided by a single point of contact or directly to the Postal Service by a commenting party.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of ALLEGHENY ENERGY, INC. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

|                       | /s/ Paul J. Evanson                        |
|----------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|  

Date. May  8, 2006 | Paul J. EvansonPrincipal Executive Officer |
H. R. 5302

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,

the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

An Act

To designate the United States courthouse located at 1010 Fifth Avenue in Seattle,

Washington, as the ‘‘William Kenzo Nakamura United States Courthouse’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The United States courthouse located at 1010 Fifth Avenue

in Seattle, Washington, shall be known and designated as the

‘‘William Kenzo Nakamura United States Courthouse’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the building referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘William

Kenzo Nakamura United States Courthouse’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
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 Annual Report of Innofone.Com Inc., (the "Company"), on
Form 10-KSB for the year ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frederic Richardson,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
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.



October 13, 2004                              By:  /s/ Frederic Richardson
----------------                                 -----------------------------
                                                 Frederic Richardson

                                              Its:  Chief Executive Officer &
                                                    Chief Financial Officer