alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 24.7

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Mark A. Kopser and John J. Wellik, and each of them, his true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his behalf, as a director or officer, or both, as
the case may be, of United Surgical Partners International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2002, and to sign any or all amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact, and each of them with or without the others, full power and authority to do and perform each and every
act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of
said attorneys-in-fact or its substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

| |  | /s/THOMAS L. MILLSThomas L. Mills
| |  | ---------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                        30,206
<SECURITIES>                                 458,117
<RECEIVABLES>                                 30,726
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             562,134
<PP&E>                                       669,354
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             1,231,488
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      5,509,652
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                     155,595
<OTHER-SE>                                 5,153,375
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               1,231,488
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              83,309
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             328,050
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (222,914)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (222,914)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                (222,914)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.01)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 0:22-cv-62112-WPD

TED MENDEZ

and other similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff (s),

v. 

WASH PLUS, LLC,

and MICHAEL D. KELCH, individually,

Defendants,

__________________________________/ 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On February 10, 2022, this Court entered its Scheduling Order, which required the 

parties to submit appropriate dismissal papers within ten (10) calendar days of notifying 

the Court that the case has settled. See [DE 9]. On May 12, 2023, a Mediator’s Report was 

filed, informing the Court that this action has settled. See [DE 17]. However, as of the date 

of this Order, a stipulation, notice, or motion for dismissal has not been filed with the Court.

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that no later than May 31, 

2023, the parties shall either file the appropriate dismissal documents or show cause why 

they have not been filed.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, 

Florida, this 24th day of May, 2023.

Case 0:22-cv-62112-WPD Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/24/2023 Page 1 of 2
Copies to: 

Counsel of record

Case 0:22-cv-62112-WPD Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/24/2023 Page 2 of 2
#### Fairthorne *vs*Wigginton.

*December*27.

Error to the Spencer Circuit-.

Chancery.

*■Case*69.

The case -■stated.

*Practice in Chancery. Appeals. Writs of Error.*

Judge Graham

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Wigginton and others creditors of Hough, being unable to make their debts by process at law, exhibited 'their several bills against Hough and others to reach his dioses in action, and to subject among other things certain tracts of land to the satisfaction of their demands. Their several suits were consolidated by order of Court.

Of the lands sought to be subjected, -one of them is a tract once owned by J. Q. A. Hall, and which on *the*one hand, it is insisted, was sold by him to Porter in good faith, whilst on the part of the creditors, it is insisted that the land was paid for by notes fraudulently transferred from Hough to Porter, &c., and that the whole transaction is a fraudulent device to protect *369Hough’s property, and hinder and delay his creditors. In this state of the controversy, Fairthorne exhibited his petition asking that he be made a party to the controversy. He sets up a purchase and conveyance to him of the legal title to the land under an execution sale against the estate of J. Q. A. Hall. If the statements of his petition are true, the legal title is in him, and he presents such a state of facts as makes it important, if not indispensible, that he should be made a party, not only to do justice to him, but to enable the Court, if the legal title is improperly in him, to divest him of it, and either subject it to sale to satisfy Hough’s creditors, or confirm the title to Porter.

Though oné who is a necessary & proper party may ask to be made such by petition, and his petition rejected, no writ of error lies to the decision of the Court upon that motion until there has been a final decree in the case.

*Throop and Johnston*for plaintiff; *Grigsby and*Wick*liffe*for defendants.

But although it seems as the case is presented in his petition, that the Court should have required the complainants to make him a party, yet as no decree has been rendered in the cause, and as the refusal of the Court, can not be considered a final order, because, although refused at one time, it may be granted on another application, we are of opinion that he has not *at this time*a right to prosecute an appeal or writ of error, but must wait until there is a final decree, unless in the mean time he shall be made a party, and an opportunity is afforded him to have his title investigated. His writ has been prematurely sued out. It is therefore dismissed.
**UNITED STATES**  **ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**  **AGENCY REGION**  **IX 75**  **Hawthorne Street**  **San Francisco,**  **CA 94105**  **September 30,**  **2016 Marcia**  **Hadenf**

**eldt, Library**  **Assistant Montezuma**  **Creek Library**  **and Bluff** **Library, San**  **Juan County**  **P.O. Box**  **99 Bluff** **UT 84512**  **Subject: Request**  **to retain**  **public documents**  **at the**  **Montezuma Creek**  **Library and** 

**Bluff Library**  **for public**  **inspection The**  **purpose of** **this letter**  **is to**  **request that**  **the Montezuma**  **Creek Library**  **and Bluff** **Library retain**  **the enclosed**  **package at**  **the library**  **for at**  **least sixty**  **(60) days**  **for public**  **inspection. The**  **package consists**  **of documents**  **related to**  **the United**  **States Environmental**  **Protection Agency's**  **final decision**  **on the**  **Clean Air**  **Act Prevention** **of Significant** **Deterioration amendment**  **permit for**  **the McElmo**  **Creek Unit**  **Oil Production** **Facility on**  **the Navajo**  **Nation Indian**  **Reservation near**  **the city**  **of Aneth,**  **San Juan**  **County, Utah.**  **We would**  **greatly appreciate**  **your assistance**  **for making**  **these documents**  **available to**  **the general**  **public. Please**  **contact me**  **at (415)**  **947-4156 or**  **r9airpermits@epa.gov if** **you have**  **any questions.** 

**Enclosure Sincerely,**  **��**

**Shaheerah Kelly**  **Environmental Engineer**  **Permits Office,**  **Air Division**
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 6, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50140

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RUBEN M. AVILA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-02-CR-413-ALL-OG

USDC No. SA-02-M-35-ALL

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

Before BARKSDALE, EMILO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rubin M. Avila appeals his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 111

for simple assault, following a jury trial. Avila argues that the

evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction because it

did not show that he forcibly assaulted James Palermo, a member of

the Security Forces, or that he intended to place him in reasonable

apprehension of immediate harm. 
No. 03-50140

-2-

Title 18 U.S.C. § 111 punishes anyone who "forcibly assaults,

resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with a

[federal officer] while engaged in or on account of the performance

of official duties." See United States v. Moore, 958 F.2d 646, 649

(5th Cir. 1992). Given the testimony at trial that Avila swung his

right arm towards the security officer who had placed his fingers

on the back of Avila’s arm because Palermo had insulted him, a

reasonable trier of fact could have found that the evidence

established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v.

Jaramillo, 42 F.3d 920, 923 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No. 9:22-cv-81754-DMM 

BRANDON LANGENWALTER, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

GULF COAST COLLECTION BUREAU 

INC, 

 

Defendant. 

_______________________________________/ 

JOINT NOTICE OF MEDIATION 

 Plaintiff Brandon Langenwalter and Defendant Gulf Coast Collection Bureau Inc advise 

this Court that the Parties have agreed upon the selection of Steven Mayans to mediate this matter, 

with mediation scheduled for June 13, 2023, at 1:00 PM via remote video conference (e.g., Zoom). 

DATED: January 25, 2023 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 /s/ Thomas J. Patti .

THOMAS PATTI, ESQ. 

Florida Bar No. 118377 

E-mail: tom@pzlg.legal 

VICTOR ZABALETA, ESQ. 

Florida Bar No. 118517 

E-mail: victor@pzlg.legal 

PATTI ZABALETA LAW GROUP 

3325 Northwest 55th Street 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 

Phone: 561-542-8550 

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 

 /s/ Adam Harrison Settle .

ADAM HARRISON SETTLE, ESQ.

Florida Bar No. 1026828 

E-mail: asettle@kdvlaw.com 

Kaufman Dolowich Voluck 

1600 John F Kennedy Blvd Suite 1030 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 

Phone: 484-841-7107 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

Case 9:22-cv-81754-DMM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2023 Page 1 of 1
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-742V

(Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

*

AMANDA BIERS-MELCHER, *

*

Petitioner, * 

* Filed: April 17, 2017

v. *

* Decision on Attorneys’

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Fees and Costs

HUMAN SERVICES *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DECISION (ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS)

HASTINGS, Special Master

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,1I issued a 

Decision on March 20, 2017. On April 4, 2017, Petitioner filed an application for attorneys’ fees 

and costs in this matter. Petitioner requests a total award of $11,641.08, representing $11,149.40 

for attorneys’ fees, and $491.68 for attorneys’ costs.

On April 6, 2017, Respondent filed a Response to Petitioner’s Application for Attorneys’ 

Fees and Costs, which stated that “Respondent is satisfied the statutory requirements for an 

award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case.” (ECF No. 27, p. 2.) However, 

Respondent provided no specific comments concerning the amounts requested, and simply 

“recommends that the special master exercise his discretion [to] determine a reasonable award.” 

(Id., p. 3.) 

I find that this Petition was filed and pursued in good faith and with a reasonable basis. 

Thus, an award for fees and costs is appropriate at this time, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(b) 

 

1 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2012). 
and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amounts seem reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, I 

hereby award the following attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(b) and 

(e)(1):

• a lump sum of $11,641.08, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner 

and Petitioner’s counsel, Edward Kraus, on account of services performed by 

counsel’s law firm.

In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review filed pursuant to Appendix B of the 

Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment in 

accordance herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED

 /s/ George L. Hastings, Jr.

 George L. Hastings, Jr.

 Special Master

 

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing the 

right to seek review.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

Case No.: 1:22-cv-23753-KMM 

EDWIN GARRISON, et al., on behalf of 

themselves and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al., 

Defendants. 

 / 

NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE 

Jonathan S. Klein of the law firm Mayer Brown LLP hereby appears in the above-captioned 

action as counsel for Specially Appearing Defendant Sam Trabucco1 and requests service of all 

papers in this action through CM/ECF or (as appropriate) by email at jklein@mayerbrown.com or 

at the address specified below. 

 Date: April 14, 2023 /s/ Jonathan S. Klein 

Jonathan S. Klein 

Florida Bar No. 125254 

jklein@mayerbrown.com 

MAYER BROWN LLP 

1999 K Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20006-1101 

Telephone: (202) 263-3327 

Counsel for Specially Appearing 

Defendant Sam Trabucco

 

1 Mr. Klein makes this appearance for Specially Appearing Defendant Sam Trabucco without 

prejudice to, or waiver of, any objections to service or personal jurisdiction over Mr. Trabucco. 

This is not a general appearance in the above-captioned action (or any other action). 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 1 of 1
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 Quarterly Report of CECO Environmental Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis W. Blazer, V.P.  Finance and Administration and Chief Financial 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:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; 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/ Dennis W. Blazer                                         
|Dennis W. Blazer                                             
|V.P.  Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer
|                                                             
|Date: May 14, 2010
§ 83.08 Action to avoid collision (Rule 8). ( a ) Any action taken to avoid collision shall be taken in accordance with the Rules of this subpart (Rules 4-19) (§§ 83.04 through 83.19) and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship.
( b ) Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be large enough to be readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small alterations of course and/or speed should be avoided.
( c ) If there is sufficient sea room, alteration of course alone may be the most effective action to avoid a close-quarters situation provided that it is made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another close-quarters situation.
( d ) Action taken to avoid collision with another vessel shall be such as to result in passing at a safe distance. The effectiveness of the action shall be carefully checked until the other vessel is finally past and clear.
( e ) If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the situation, a vessel shall slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping or reversing her means of propulsion.
( f ) ( i ) A vessel which, by any of these Rules, is required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel shall, when required by the circumstances of the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea room for the safe passage of the other vessel.
( ii ) A vessel required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel is not relieved of this obligation if approaching the other vessel so as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking action, have full regard to the action which may be required by the Rules of Subpart B (Rules 4-19).
( iii ) A vessel the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the Rules of Subpart B (Rules 4-19) when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.
§ 102-34.125 Where may we obtain U.S. Government license plates? You may obtain U.S. Government license plates for domestic fleets— ( a ) By contacting: U.S. Department of Justice, UNICOR, Federal Prison Industries, Inc., 400 First Street, NW., Room 6010, Washington, DC 20534.
( b ) For assistance with any issues involving license plates, contact the following office: General Services Administration, ATTN: MT, Washington, DC 20405. E-mail: *vehicle.policy@gsa.gov .*
Note to § 102-34.125 :
GSA has established a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on behalf of all Federal agencies with Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR) for the procurement of official U.S. Government license plates. Each agency must execute an addendum to this MOU providing plate design and specific ordering and payment information before ordering license plates. Agency field activities should contact their national level Agency Fleet Manager for assistance.
#### § 102-118.670 If a TSP cannot immediately pay a debt, can they make other arrangements for payment?

Yes, if a TSP is unable to pay the debt promptly, the Director of the GSA Transportation Audits Division has the discretion to enter into alternative arrangements for payment.

[65 FR 24569, Apr. 26, 2000, as amended at 87 FR 32327, May 31, 2022]
EXHIBIT B

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 35-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2023 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

EDWIN GARRISON, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al., 

Defendants.

_________________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO APPEAR 

PRO HAC VICE, CONSENT TO DESIGNATION, AND REQUEST TO 

ELECTRONICALLY RECEIVE NOTICES OF ELECTRONIC FILING

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant Kevin O’Leary’s motion for Andrew 

B. Brettler to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive 

Notices of Electronic Filing, pursuant to the Special Rules Governing the Admission, Practice, 

Peer Review, and Discipline of Attorneys of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida and Section 2B of the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Being fully advised, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED. Andrew B. Brettler may 

appear and participate in this action on behalf of Kevin O’Leary. The Clerk of Court is directed to 

provide electronic notification of all electronic filings to Andrew B. Brettler at: 

abrettler@berkbrettler.com.

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida this __ day of January, 2023.

___________________________

K. MICHAEL MOORE

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 35-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2023 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements No. 333-102601, 333-89892, 333-54836, 333-44626, 333-39366, 333-112912, 333-123979, 333-130043 and 333-152478 on Form S-8 and 333-156417 on Form S-3 of our reports dated March 14, 2008, relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements and financial statement schedule of AsiaInfo Holdings, Inc., its subsidiaries and its variable interest entities (collectively, the “Company”) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatoryparagraph relating to the adoption of the recognition and measurement methods under Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes – An Interpretation of FASB statementNo. 109”) and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd. 

Beijing, the People’s Republicof China 

January 30, 2009