alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 399 (01/09) Waiver of the Service of Summons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To:

(Name of the plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint,

two copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. 

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. 

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. 

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within

60 days from , the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the

United States). If I fail to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date:

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

Printed name of party waiving service of summons Printed name

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a summons

and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff located in

the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure.

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the plaintiff

and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been served.

 Southern District of Florida

EDWIN GARRISON, et al.

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al.

1:22-cv-23753-KMM

Adam M. Moskowitz

12/27/2022

01/16/2023

Thomas Brady Jessica Stebbins Bina

Latham & Watkins LLP

10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1100

Los Angeles, CA 90067

jessica.stebbinsbina@lw.com

(424) 653-5525

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/17/2023 Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Part 3005

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3005, formerly part 3003, appear at 70 FR 48277, Aug. 17, 2005.

#### § 3005.106 Fees.

The first copy of any record furnished under the Privacy Act of 1974 will be provided without charge. Additional copies will be charged at the cost of reproduction.

[64 FR 57982, Oct. 28, 1999. Redesignated at 85 FR 9615, Feb. 19, 2020]
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES

OCTAVIO COLLADO,

Plaintiff, COLLECTIVE ACTION 

vs.

450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC,

D/B/A KIKI ON THE RIVER, 

RJ RIVER, LLC AND 

ROMAN JONES,

Defendants.

______________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF FILING CONSENT TO JOIN 

(Marcela Cardenas) 

 

Plaintiff, Octavio Collado, notices the Court and all parties of the filing of the Consent to 

Join in these proceedings by Marcela Cardenas.

Dated this 19th day of September 2023. 

s/Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 174742

brian@fairlawattorney.com

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Avenue

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33146

Tel: 305.230.4884

Counsel for Plaintiff(s)

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 211 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2023 Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Subpart 101-6.2 of Part 101-6

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 101-6 appear at 68 FR 51373, Aug. 26, 2003.

#### §§ 101-6.207-101-6.208 [Reserved]
#### § 101-21.000 Cross-reference to the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) (41 CFR chapter 102, parts 102-1 through 102-220.)

For information previously contained in this part, see FMR part 85 (41 CFR part 102-85).
§ 10.4 Financial disclosure reports. ( a ) *Requirement of submission of reports* — ( 1 ) *Upon nomination.* At the time of their nomination, Governors complete a financial disclosure report which, under the practice of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, is kept confidential.
( 2 ) *After confirmation.* Because the Director of the Office of Government Ethics has concluded that Governors who do not perform the duties of their office for more than 60 days in any calendar year are not required to file financial disclosure reports that are open to the public, Governors file non-public reports annually, in accordance with this section. A Governor who performs the duties of his or her office for more than 60 days in a particular calendar year is required to file a public report in accordance with 5 CFR 2634.204(c).
( b ) *Person with whom reports should be filed and time for filing.* ( 1 ) A Governor shall file a financial disclosure report with the Associate General Counsel on or before May 15 of each year when the Governor has been in office for more than 60 consecutive calendar days during the previous year.
( 2 ) The Associate General Counsel may, for good cause shown, grant to a Governor one or more extensions totaling not more than 90 days.
( c ) *Information required to be reported.* Each report shall be a full and complete statement, on the form prescribed by the Associate General Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics and in accordance with instructions issued by him or her.
( d ) *Reviewing reports.* ( 1 ) Financial disclosure reports filed in accordance with the provisions of this section shall, within 60 days after the date of filing, be reviewed by the Associate General Counsel who shall either approve the report, or make an initial determination that a conflict or appearance thereof exists. If the Associate General Counsel determines initially that a conflict or the appearance of a conflict exists, he or she shall inform the Governor of his or her determination.
( 2 ) If the Associate General Counsel considers that additional information is needed to complete the report or to allow an adequate review to be conducted, he or she shall request the reporting Governor to furnish that information by a specified date.
( 3 ) The Associate General Counsel shall refer to the Chairman of the Board of Governors or the Vice Chairman the name of any Governor he or she has reasonable cause to believe has wrongfully failed to file a report or has falsified or wrongfully failed to report required information.
( e ) *Custody of and public access to reports* — ( 1 ) *Retention of reports.* Each report filed with the Associate General Counsel shall be retained by him or her for a period of six years. After the six-year period, the report shall be destroyed unless needed in connection with an investigation then pending.
( 2 ) *Confidentiality of reports.* Unless a public report is required by this section, the financial disclosure reports filed by Governors shall not be made public.
[86 FR 24713, May 10, 2021]
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

RELM WIRELESS CORPORATION

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 RELM Wireless Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David P. Storey, President and Chief Executive 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 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.

RELM Wireless Corporation

/s/David P. Storey

David P. Storey

President and Chief Executive Officer

August 8, 2007
#### § 101-26.607-2 Adjustments.

Requests for billing adjustments should be submitted in accordance with chapter 5 of the GSA Handbook, Discrepancies or Deficiencies in GSA or DOD Shipments, Material, or Billings (FPMR 101-26.8).

[42 FR 58750, Nov. 11, 1977]
### p. 1 

# F?I~- ''f/a - 4

f'ivJ= ~2oOS- 6,0,3Z Dawn Kominski <dkominski@tkinet .com> 05/121200804:39PM To Catherine RomanlDC/USEPA/US@EPA cc bcc Subject FW

: Importation of Acetyl Chloride I hope this is what you were looking for . Dawn . -----Original Message----- From : Dawn Kominski Sent : Friday, March 23, 2007 10:24 AM To: 'Roman .Catherine@epamail .epa .gov' Cc : Schweer .Greg@epamail .epa .gov; Ken Gagon Subject : RE : Importation of Acetyl Chloride . r-~

C

Yes, the last importation of acetyl chloride was in 2002. I asked our import person if she knows of anyone else who imports or manufactures acetyl chloride . She did not . Typically we would have more information on other companies in our business areas, but we imported the acetyl chloride for our parent company and therefore were not involved in the sales, marketing, etc. of the material . If you have any additional questions let me know . Thanks . Dawn Kominski 602-889-8401 -----Original Message----- From : Roman.Catherine@epamail .epa .gov [mailto:Roman.Catherine@epamail Sent : Monday, March 19, 2007 11 :41 AM To: Dawn Kominski Cc: Schweer .Greg@epamail .epa .gov c.tt Subject : Importation of Acetyl Chloride On December 5, 2006, I phoned you concerning the importation by Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc. of acetyl chloride (CAS No. 75-36-5), which is a chemical on the TSCA section 4 test rule entitled "Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals" (71 FR 13708, March 16, 2006) . The purpose of my call was to determine if your company has manufactured (including imported ) the chemical since the 2002 IUR reporting period. Your response to my questions conveyed the following:

Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc. last imported acetyl chloride in 2002. Please confirm that what was conveyed to me in your response is accurate. If it is not accurate, please provide a correction. Also, is your company aware of any other companies that manufacture (including import) acetyl chloride. I would appreciate receiving your response in a "reply with history" e-mail to me (roman .catherine@epa .gov) . Catherine Roman 

# CONTAINS NOCBl 3USEPA

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 7405M Washington, DC 20460 (202) 564-8172 (202) 564-4765 (Fax)
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSeaWiFS Technical Report SeriesThis document provides brief reports, or case studies, on a number of investigations sponsored by the Calibration and Validation Team (CVT) within the Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) Project. Chapter I describes the calibration and characterization of the GSFC sphere, which was used in the recent recalibration of the SeaWiFS instrument. Chapter 2 presents a revision of the diffuse attenuation coefficient, K(490), algorithm based on the SeaWiFS wavelengths. Chapter 3 provides an implementation scheme for an algorithm to remove out-of-band radiance when using a sensor calibration based on a finite width (truncated) spectral response function, e.g., between the 1% transmission points. Chapter 4 describes the implementation schemes for the stray light quality flag (local area coverage [LAC] and global area coverage [GAC]) and the LAC stray light correction.Document ID19970028804Acquisition SourceGoddard Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsYeh, Eueng-nan*(General Sciences Corp. Laurel, MD United States)*Barnes, Robert A.*(General Sciences Corp. Laurel, MD United States)*Darzi, Michael*(General Sciences Corp. Laurel, MD United States)*Kumar, Lakshmi*(Hughes STX, Inc. Lanham, MD United States)*Early, Edward A.*(National Inst. of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD United States)*Johnson, B. Carol*(National Inst. of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD United States)*Mueller, James L.*(San Diego State Univ. San Diego, CA United States)*Trees, Charles C.*(San Diego State Univ. San Diego, CA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1997Subject CategoryOceanographyReport/Patent NumberRept-97B00080NASA-TM-104566-Vol-41-Pt-4NAS 1.15:104566-Vol-41-Pt-4Accession Number97N27530Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970028804.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors

Zhone Technologies, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-115306 and 333-113320) and in the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-134217, 333-132336, 333-128092, 333-123369, 333-117142,333-110713, 333-98855, 333-88732, 333-83422, 333-73352 and 333-61956) of Zhone Technologies, Inc. of our reports dated March 6, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Zhone Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries as ofDecember 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2006, and management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, which reports appear in the December 31, 2006 annualreport on Form 10-K of Zhone Technologies, Inc. Our report dated March 6, 2007 refers to an accounting change as a result of the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R), *"Share-Based Payment."*

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Mountain View, California 

March 6, 2007
Submitted on record and briefs April 23,

reversed and remanded for new trial September 6, 1995,

petition for review allowed March 6, 1996 (322 Or 644)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*JAMES MICHAEL JUNGWIRTH, *Appellant.*

(92-CR-0574; CA A81746)

902 P2d 114

James Michael Jungwirth filed the brief *pro se.*

Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Kaye E. Sunderland, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Riggs, Presiding Judge, and Landau and Leeson, Judges.

PER CURIAM
#### § 101-27.207-2 Inspection.

Type II items remaining in stock immediately before the end of the designated shelf-life period shall be inspected to determine whether the shelf life can be extended, except items having a line item inventory value of $300 or less, or if the cost of inspection or testing is significant in relation to the value of the item. If the material is found suitable for issue on the date of inspection, the shelf life should be extended for a period equal to 50 percent of the original shelf-life period and the next reinspection date established accordingly. Material should be reinspected before the end of each extended shelf-life period and the shelf life extended again up to 50 percent of the original shelf life as long as the material conforms to the established criteria. Material on which the shelf life has been extended shall not be shipped to overseas activities if the time remaining in the extended shelf-life period is relatively short.

[40 FR 59596, Dec. 29, 1975]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME OF THE COMPANY AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                2,944
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      2,944
<PP&E>                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        6,056
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               227,758
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                600
<OTHER-SE>                         (222,302)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          6,056
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       221,702
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   (221,702)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           0
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (221,702)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                       (221,702)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.25)



</TABLE>
149IO-13-PI DEPARTMENT OF TRA,,'1SPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14CFR Part 39 rDocket No. 

### FAA-2010-9:l~7~ectorate Identifier 201O-NM-036-AD; 

# WL

# q'lJ IO-lq Amendment 39_*v;.***;AD 2010-**-**) RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A340-200 and A340-300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTransportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule; request forcomments. SUMMARY: We are adopting anew airworthiness directive (AD) forthe products list d ~ m



### * 

### * 

## * * * 

### * * 

## * * 

## * 

# • * * 

## * which could result in failure ofthe fOIV.'ard engine mount, possible separation of the loadpath forthe forward engine mounl and damage to other engine mount structures, above that supersedes an existing AD. This AD results from mandatory continuing Engineering analysis using the new calculated loads has shown that the structural integrity ofthe forward engine mount cannot be guaranteed after either thrust link has accumulated 15500 Flight Cycles (Fe). the unsafe condition as: to identify and correct anunsafe condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describe airworthiness information (MeAl) originated byan aviation authority ofanother count A loss of stmctural integrity of the forward engine mounts could lead to the Joss ofthe
Searched for **https://www.ignet.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ignet.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
Argued and submitted May 8,

affirmed May 31,

petition for review denied August 22, 1995 (321 Or 512)

#### Charlotte MILLS, *Respondent, v.*CITY OF YACHATS, *Respondent below, and*Norman M. FORRESTER, *Petitioner.*

(94-161; CA A87762)

896 P2d 13

John Dumas argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner.

Richard W. Scholl argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Hasel-ton, Judges.

DEITS, P. J.

*583DEITS, P. J.

Respondent Mills appealed to LUBA from the City of Yachats planning commission’s issuance of a building permit to petitioner Forrester. Mills contended that the city council erred in holding that, under the applicable provision of the city’s zoning ordinance, she had no right to appeal the commission’s action to the council. LUBA agreed, and remanded the decision for appropriate proceedings before the city council. Forrester petitions for review and argues, *inter alia,*that LUBA erred in its conclusion that the ordinance provision allows for an appeal to the council. We agree with LUBA’s conclusion and reasoning, and we reject Forrester’s argument without further discussion.

LUBA noted that, after the council had made its decision concerning appeal rights, Mills and others “filed an action in circuit court to enjoin construction of the dwelling” authorized by the building permit. Although Forrester had advised LUBA that that case had been decided in favor of the defendants, LUBA did not agree with Forrester’s argument that the circuit court action or disposition divested LUBA of jurisdiction over the present appeal, because the record before LUBA did not contain sufficient information about the circuit court proceeding to make possible a determination of its effects, jurisdictional or otherwise.1 Again, we agree with LUBA. This opinion does not decide anything about the circuit court proceeding or any effects that it may or may not have on the proceedings on remand before the city council.

LUBA also concluded that it could not consider Mills’ arguments that the applicable ordinance criteria for allowing or disallowing the permit involved

> “sufficient discretion to make the exception to LUBA’s review jurisdiction for building permits issued under ‘clear an[d] objective standards’ inapplicable. ORS 197.015-(10)(b)(B). These arguments may be raised if the city’s ultimate decision concerning the building permit, following this remand, is again appealed to LUBA.”

*584Once more, we agree. On its face, the council’s order that Mills had no right of appeal to it from the issuance of the permit was an appealable land use decision under ORS 197.015(10). The appealability of the council’s decision on the merits of the permit application is a question that cannot be resolved before the council makes a final decision on the merits.

Affirmed.

1

 The case is now pendingbefore us on appeal, but, as of the date of this decision, has not been argued, *St. John, et al v. Yachats Planning Commission, et al,*Lincoln County Circuit Court No. 94-3070, CA A86763.