alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Adam M. Moskowitz

Joseph M. Kaye

THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC

2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

Telephone: (305) 740-1423

Service@moskowitz-law.com

David Boies

(Pro Hac Vice Application Forthcoming)

Stephen Neal Zack

Hon. Ursula Ungaro (Ret.)

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP

333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504

100 SE 2nd St., Suite 2800, Miami, FL 33131

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 11-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 11-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 2 of 2
#### § 101-30.100 Scope of subpart.

This subpart defines the objectives of the Federal Catalog System, and assigns responsibilities for its operation. The basic principles and procedures of the Federal Catalog System are contained in published cataloging handbooks and manuals described in subpart 101-30.2.
V

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 508

For the relief of Roma Salobrit.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 2, 1999

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Roma Salobrit.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. IMMEDIATE RELATIVE STATUS FOR ROMA

4 SALOBRIT.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Roma Salobrit shall be classified

6 as a child under section 101(b)(1)(F) of the Immigration

7 and Nationality Act for purposes of approval of a relative

8 visa petition filed under section 204 of such Act by her

9 adoptive parent and the filing of an application for an im10 migrant visa or adjustment of status.

11 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Roma Salobrit en12 ters the United States before the filing deadline specified
2

•HR 508 IH

1 in subsection (c), she shall be considered to have entered

2 and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be

3 eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the

4 Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the en5 actment of this Act.

6 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

7 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the pe8 tition and the application for issuance of an immigrant

9 visa or the application for adjustment of status are filed

10 with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the

11 enactment of this Act.

12 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

13 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res14 idence to Roma Salobrit, the Secretary of State shall in15 struct the proper officer to reduce by 1, for the current

16 or next following fiscal year, the worldwide level of family17 sponsored immigrants under section 201(c)(1)(A) of the

18 Immigration and Nationality Act.

19 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

20 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural

21 parents, brothers, and sisters of Roma Salobrit shall not,

22 by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, privi23 lege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 118 (Monday, June 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 37967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15355]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-2572-000]


Western Resources, Inc. and Kansas Gas and Electric Company; 
Notice of Filing

June 13, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 23, 2000, Western Resources, Inc., tendered 
for filing notice that effective June 1, 2000 Exhibit D designated as 
Supplement No. 28 to Kansas Gas and Electric Company's FERC Electric 
Rate Schedule No. 183 (Electric Power, Transmission and Service 
Contract between Kansas Gas and Electric Company and Kansas Electric 
Power Cooperative, Inc., dated May 26, 1993) is to be canceled.
    Notice of the proposed cancellation has been served upon KEPCo and 
the Kansas Corporation Commission.
    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, N.E., Washington, D.C. 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 23, 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. 00-15355 Filed 6-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Michael WANCA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PENN INDUSTRIES, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 62, Docket 25202.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Oct. 8, 1958.

Decided Oct. 29, 1958.

William F. McNulty, New York City (Bounds & Wourms, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.

Robert Klonsky, New York City (Herman N. Rabson, New York City, and DiCostanzo & Klonsky, Brooklyn, N. Y., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and MEDINA and LUMBARD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

While working on the New York docks for the Pennsylvania Railroad, plaintiff was injured by a stray bullet shot by one Watson, a longshoreman for defendant, who had been working and quarreling there with another of defendant’s employees .for about half the day. Ample evidence supports the court’s finding that Green, defendant’s assistant foreman, had notice of Watson’s condition; and his failure to act therefore consti*351tuted a breach of duty owed the plaintiff. “Duty * * * is measured by the scope of the risk which negligent conduct foreseeably entails.” 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts § 18.2 (1956). Green’s failure to dismiss Watson created a risk —that a fight would result — which was reasonably foreseeable; and, given well-known human proclivities of workmen, so was the likelihood that one of the two quarreling employees would resort to a dangerous instrument, such as a gun, and thereby injure an innocent bystander. This conclusion accords with New York law, applicable here. McCrink v. City of New York, 296 N.Y. 99, 71 N.E.2d 419; Rafsky v. City of New York, 257 App.Div. 855, 12 N.Y.S.2d 560; Ford v. Grand Union Co., 268 N.Y. 243, 254, 197 N.E. 266, reargument denied 268 N.Y. 664, 198 N.E. 546; Hogle v. H. H. Franklin Mfg. Co., 199 N.Y. 388, 92 N.E. 794, 32 L.R.A.,N.S., 1038.

Judgment affirmed.
#### § 101-26.506-5 Reimbursement for services.

If the GSA proposal is acceptable, a purchase order, requisition, or other funded authorization document shall be issued to the GSA office named in the proposal. GSA will bill the office indicated in the order or authorization for the amount specified in the proposal. The reimbursement procedures are designed to recover GSA's direct cost for providing these services. Any changes in the scope of the project requested by the requisitioning agency prior to its completion may require a revision in the amount of the reimbursable charges and the time schedule for completion.

[31 FR 9797, July 20, 1966]
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5241

To amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels

illegal.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 21, 2000

Mr. CHABOT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and

exporting cartels illegal.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Oil Producing and

5 Exporting Cartels Act of 2000’’ or ‘‘NOPEC’’.

6 SEC. 2. SHERMAN ACT.

7 The Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) is amended

8 by adding after section 7 the following:
2

•HR 5241 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 7A. OIL PRODUCING CARTELS.

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—It shall be illegal and a violation

3 of this Act for any foreign state, or any instrumentality

4 or agent of any foreign state, to act collectively or in com5 bination with any other foreign state, any instrumentality

6 or agent of any other foreign state, or any other person,

7 whether by cartel or any other association or form of co8 operation or joint action—

9 ‘‘(1) to limit the production or distribution of

10 oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product;

11 ‘‘(2) to set or maintain the price of oil, natural

12 gas, or any petroleum product; or

13 ‘‘(3) to otherwise take any action in restraint of

14 trade for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product;

15 when such action, combination, or collective action has a

16 direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on

17 the market, supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural

18 gas, or other petroleum product in the United States.

19 ‘‘(b) SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.—A foreign state en20 gaged in conduct in violation of subsection (a) shall not

21 be immune under the doctrine of sovereign immunity from

22 the jurisdiction or judgments of the courts of the United

23 States in any action brought to enforce this section.

24 ‘‘(c) INAPPLICABILITY OF ACT OF STATE DOC25 TRINE.—No court of the United States shall decline,
3

•HR 5241 IH

1 based on the act of state doctrine, to make a determina2 tion on the merits in an action brought under this section.

3 ‘‘(d) ENFORCEMENT.—The Attorney General of the

4 United States and the Federal Trade Commission may

5 bring an action to enforce this section in any district court

6 of the United States as provided under the antitrust

7 laws.’’.

8 SEC. 3. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.

9 Section 1605(a) of title 28, United States Code, is

10 amended—

11 (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘or’’ after the

12 semicolon;

13 (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and

14 inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

15 (3) by adding at the end the following:

16 ‘‘(8) in an action brought under section 7A of

17 the Sherman Act.’’.

Æ
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsImage dissector camera system studyVarious aspects of a rendezvous and docking system using an image dissector detector as compared to a GaAs detector were discussed. Investigation into a gimbled scanning system is also covered and the measured video response curves from the image dissector camera are presented. Rendezvous will occur at ranges greater than 100 meters. The maximum range considered was 1000 meters. During docking, the range, range-rate, angle, and angle-rate to each reflector on the satellite must be measured. Docking range will be from 3 to 100 meters. The system consists of a CW laser diode transmitter and an image dissector receiver. The transmitter beam is amplitude modulated with three sine wave tones for ranging. The beam is coaxially combined with the receiver beam. Mechanical deflection of the transmitter beam, + or - 10 degrees in both X and Y, can be accomplished before or after it is combined with the receiver beam. The receiver will have a field-of-view (FOV) of 20 degrees and an instantaneous field-of-view (IFOV) of two milliradians (mrad) and will be electronically scanned in the image dissector. The increase in performance obtained from the GaAs photocathode is not needed to meet the present performance requirements.Document ID19840012738Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsHowell, L.*(ITT Aerospace/Optical Div. Fort Wayne, IN, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1984Subject CategoryInstrumentation And PhotographyReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-171759NAS 1.26:171759Accession Number84N20806Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS9-16923Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840012738.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
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 117 (Friday, June 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 37814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15314]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice #3328]


Shipping Coordinating Committee; Subcommittee on Safety of Life 
at Sea and Associated Bodies, Working Group on Stability and Load Lines 
and on Fishing Vessels Safety; Notice of Meeting

    The Working Group on Stability and Load Lines and on Fishing 
Vessels Safety of the Subcommittee on Safety of Life at Sea will 
conduct an open meeting at 9 a.m. on Monday, June 26, 2000, in Room 
6303, at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20593-0001. This meeting will discuss the upcoming 43RD 
Session of the Subcommittee on Stability and Load Lines and on Fishing 
Vessels Safety (SLF) and associated bodies of the International 
Maritime Organization (IMO) which will be held on September 11-15, 
2000, at the IMO Headquarters in London, England.
    Items of discussion will include the following:
    a. Review of results from SLF 42,
    b. Harmonization of damage stability provisions in the IMO 
instruments,
    c. Revision of technical regulations of the 1966 International Load 
Line Convention,
    d. Development of the damage consequence diagrams for inclusion in 
damage control plan guidelines, and
    e. Revisions to the Fishing Vessel Safety Code and Voluntary 
Guidelines
    Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating 
capacity of the room. Interested persons may seek information by 
writing: Mr. Paul Cojeen, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, Commandant (G-
MSE-2), Room 1308, 2100 Second Street, SW, Washington, DC 20593-0001 or 
by calling (202) 267-2988.

    Dated: June 9, 2000.
Stephen M. Miller,
Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating Committee.
[FR Doc. 00-15314 Filed 6-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-P
### The Honorable Donald D. Alsop, United States District Judge 1 

### for the District of Minnesota. ___________ No. 95-3149

___________ Durrell Levon Stanton, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 1, 1996 Filed: May 6, 1996

___________ Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Durre ll Levon Stanton was found guilty of one count of possessin g cocaine base (crack) with intent to distribute, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and we affirmed his conviction on direc t appeal. United States v. Stanton , 975 F.2d 479, 480-81 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied , 507 U.S. 938 (1993). Stanton subs equently filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion raising three claims of ineffective assistance of tria l counsel, all of which were rejected by the district court on the ir merits. 1 Onappe al from the denial of his motion, Stanton argues only one of hi s ineff ective-assistance claims, namely, that counsel was ineffective fo r failing to renew at trial a previously-denied mo tion to suppress. We have rev iewedthe record, and conclude that the district court's decision o n this point was clearly correct, and that an extended discussion is no t warranted. Affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

### -2- A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, (the
Report) of Allied Capital Corporation (the
Registrant), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof; I, Penni F. Roll, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, to the best
of my knowledge, 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 Registrant.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ Penni F. Roll      
| |                        
| | Name:   Penni F. Roll  
| | Date: November 10, 2008
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: 2009-0951 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2007-SW-52-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: applicability

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): Commenter stated that the AD should only apply to pre-modified aircraft as stated 

in the applicability paragraph.

What change to the AD action is requested? None

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? No reason given

Do we agree? Yes

If YES, we agree because his comment states that he agrees with the applicability paragraph. 

Make the following changes to the AD: No changes. His comment was he agrees with the 

AD as written.

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: other

If other, explain: He would like to see a specific paragraph that states compliance 

with the AD is terminating action.

Commenter(s): Commenter states "There should be a terminating action paragraph so as not to

confuse an owner/operator. A suggestion would be: "Once an aircraft is modified to a post-mod 

status then that constitutes terminating action fo this AD."

What change to the AD action is requested? Add a terminating action paragraph to the AD.
Page 2 of 3

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Change was requested so as not to confuse the 

owner/operator.

Do we agree? No

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:

If NO, we don’t agree because While this paragraph might make it clearer the AD is clear as 

written. Once the aircraft is modified that applicablility paragraph no longer applies and 

serves as terminating action.

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
Original

No. 7974

#### Frederick Martineau v. Everett I. Perrin, Warden

March 24, 1978

*Frederick Martineau,*pro se.

*168
      *David H. Souter,*attorney general, and *Richard B. McNamara,*attorney, for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

In this petition for habeas corpus, Frederick Martineau challenges deprivation of good time credits on the maximum part of his sentence for attempted burglary. The crime was committed while the plaintiff was on parole from a life sentence for murder. That parole has been revoked. The case is now before us on the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

The plaintiff does not contest the legality of his incarceration. If we decide in plaintiff’s favor, he will not be released. Unless and until he is granted reparole on his murder sentence, our decision in this case would not affect his present legal rights. The plaintiff’s claim involves a complex question of statutory construction. We believe that adjudication of such a question at the behest of a prisoner who does not stand to gain his freedom or a change in the conditions of his incarceration, would be imprudent and a poor use of scarce judicial resources.

Because we hold that the proper time to bring this claim does not arise until a prisoner is in a position to realize a tangible benefit, we grant the motion to dismiss the petition without prejudice.

*Dismissed.*