alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146 

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844 

www.fairlawattorney.com 

DECLARATION AND NOTICE OF CONSENT TO JOIN 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, I hereby make the following declaration: 

1. I am over 18 years of age and am capable of making this declaration. This declaration 

is made on my own personal knowledge. 

2. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b), I consent to serve as a plaintiff in the above-referenced 

FLSA action. 

3. I was employed by <<Custom709>>, from approximately <<Custom534>> to 

<<Custom535>>. 

4. I was not paid at least a minimum wage and/or overtime wages for all the time that I 

worked. 

5. I agree to be bound by any decision in this case. 

Signed: _______________________

Printed Name: <<LEAD NAME>> 

Dated: ________________________ 08 / 03 / 2023

Doc ID: 083a527fba3af64c9b0e5434197800b0f70a2568

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 184-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/08/2023 Page 1 of 3
 135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146 

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844 

www.fairlawattorney.com 

DECLARACIÓN Y AVISO 

De conformidad con 28 USC § 1746, por la presente hacer la siguiente declaración: 

1. Soy mayor de 18 años de edad y soy capaz que hacer esta declaracion. Esta declaracion 

es basada en mis conocimientos personales. 

2. De conformidad con 29 U.S.C. §216(b), doy mi consentiemiento para ejercer como 

demandante en esta accion bajo FLSA. 

3. Estuve empleado por <<Custom709>> desde aproximadamente <<Custom534>>

hasta <<Custom535>>. 

4. No se pagó por lo menos un salario mínimo y/o pago de horas extras para todo el

tiempo que trabajé. 

5. Estoy de acuerdo con estar vinculado a cualquier decisión en este caso. 

Firma: _______________________

Nombre: <<LEAD NAME>> 

Fecha: ________________________

Doc ID: 083a527fba3af64c9b0e5434197800b0f70a2568

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 184-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/08/2023 Page 2 of 3
Consent to Join in Spanish

37.pdf

083a527fba3af64c9b0e5434197800b0f70a2568

MM / DD / YYYY

Signed

This document was signed on fairlawattorney.lawruler.com

08 / 03 / 2023

20:31:48 UTC

Sent for signature to Amehed Rosabal (amehed27@gmail.com)

from esign@lawruler.com

IP: 40.121.15.83

08 / 03 / 2023

20:32:13 UTC

Viewed by Amehed Rosabal (amehed27@gmail.com)

IP: 172.58.128.48

08 / 03 / 2023

20:33:57 UTC

Signed by Amehed Rosabal (amehed27@gmail.com)

IP: 172.58.128.48

08 / 03 / 2023 The document has been completed.

20:33:57 UTC

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 184-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/08/2023 Page 3 of 3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GLENFORD PRINCE, AKA Dwayne

Stewart,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 72465

Agency No. A045

- 876

- 676

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 2 1 , 2019 **

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judg es

.

Glenford Prince, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen

removal proceedings . We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

abuse of discretion the BIA’s de nial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder

,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 28 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 72465

59 7 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) . We deny the petition for review

.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Prince’s untimely motion to

reopen his claim for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”) because Prince failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief to

qualify for an exception to the time limitation for motions to reopen

. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Cano

- Merida v. INS , 311 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2002) (no

abuse of discretion in denying motion to reopen where petitioner did not establish

prima facie eligibility for CAT relief).

We reject Prince’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights.

See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Ci r. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on

a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### JOHN W. SHUMWAY and another, Executors, etc., of ISAAC SHUMWAY, Deceased, Respondents, *v.*HARVEY L. HARMON and others, Appellants.

*Will—when read estate regarded as personalty*— *when executor entitled to rents.*

Plaintiffs’ testator, by his will, directed that his son should work his farm on shares for one and a half years after his decease, at the expiration of which time his said farm and personal property should be sold by his executors, and the proceeds divided among his children. *Held*(1), that upon the expiration of the year and a half it was the duty of the executors to.sell the real and personal *412estate of the testator, and convert the same into money; (2), that as equity regarded that as done .which ought to have been done, the said real and personal estate must be regarded as converted into money, and to have become • personal estate in their hands at the expiration of that time, and that thereafter the rents and profits of the said farm became part of the trust fund to be distributed by the executors, and that they were entitled to recover the same. *Moncrief*v. *Ross*(50 N. Y., 431) followed.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, entered upon the report of a referee.

*H. L. Comstock,*for the appellants.

*E. G. Lapham,*for the respondents.

Opinion by

Smith, J.

Present — Mullin, P. J., Smith and Morgan, JJ.

Judgment affirmed.
#### § 102-33.240 What must we consider before disposing or replacing aircraft and aircraft parts?

Before disposing of aircraft and aircraft parts, you must first determine if the aircraft or parts are excess to your agency's mission or, if your aircraft or parts are not excess, if you will need replacements, as follows:

| (a) If your aircraft/parts are . . . | And . . . | Then . . . |
| --- | --- | --- |
| No longer needed to perform their mission(s) for your agency, i.e., they are excess to your needs, | You do not need to replace them, | You must report them to GSA as excess property (see 41 CFR 102-36.45(e)). |
| (b) If your aircraft/parts are . . . | And . . . | Then . . . |
| No longer suitable, or capable of performing their mission(s) for your agency, | You do need to replace them, | You may consider using the exchange/sale authority (see 41 CFR part 102-39). |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

AMIN LAKHANI,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

HUNTINGTON 18 LLC and

INVESTMENTS 41, LLC,

 Defendant(s).

Case No.: 22-cv-22375-JEM

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, AMIN LAKHANI, and Defendants, HUNTINGTON 18 LLC and 

INVESTMENTS 41 LLC, by and through their respective counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii), hereby stipulate to the dismissal of this action with prejudice against 

Defendants, HUNTINGTON 18 LLC and INVESTMENTS 41 LLC with each party to bear 

their own attorney’s fees and costs except as otherwise agreed in writing.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Glenn R. Goldstein

Glenn R. Goldstein (FBN: 55873)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Glenn R. Goldstein & Assoc., PLLC

8101 Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 504

Miami, Florida 33138

(305) 900-2373

GGoldstein@G2Legal.net

s/ William Salim

William Salim (FBN: 750379)

Attorney for Defendants

William G. Salim, Jr., P.A.

800 Corporate Drive, Suite 500

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334

(954) – 491-2000

wsalim@wgsjrlaw.com

Case 1:22-cv-22375-JEM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/13/2023 Page 1 of 1
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsStatic investigation of several yaw vectoring concepts on nonaxisymmetric nozzlesA test has been conducted in the static test facility of the Langley 16-Foot Transonic Tunnel to determine the flow-turning capability and the effects on nozzle internal performance of several yaw vectoring concepts. Nonaxisymmetric convergent-divergent nozzles with throat areas simulating dry and afterburning power settings and single expansion ramp nozzles with a throat area simulating a dry power setting were modified for yaw thrust vectoring. Forward-thrust and pitch-vectored nozzle configurations were tested with each yaw vectoring concept. Four basic yaw vectoring concepts were investigated on the nonaxisymmetric convergent-divergent nozzles: (1) translating sidewall; (2) downstream (of throat) flaps; (3) upstream (of throat) port/flap; and (4) powered rudder. Selected combinations of the rudder with downstream flaps or upstream port/flap were also tested. A single yaw vectoring concept, post-exit flaps, was investigated on the single expansion ramp nozzles. All testing was conducted at static (no external flow) conditions and nozzle pressure ratios varied from 2.0 up to 10.0.Document ID19850020612Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsMason, M. L.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Berrier, B. L.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1985Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberL-15890NASA-TP-2432NAS 1.60:2432Accession Number85N28924Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-40-90Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19850020612.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
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROSHAN SAH,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-13-00129-CR

Appeal from the

Criminal District Court No. One

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC# 1272135D)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal and 

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore 

dismiss the appeal. We further order this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2014.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
#### § 946.1 Scope of part.

This part prescribes procedures governing the disposition of recovered stolen mail matter and any other property (real, personal, tangible or intangible) obtained by the Postal Inspection Service for possible use as evidence after the need to retain such property no longer exists. Property obtained by Postal Inspectors which appears to have been loose in the mails but is not retained for use as evidence, except unlawful matter, must be treated in accordance with postal regulations concerning disposition of dead mail (see Domestic Manual (DMM) 159.4). Unlawful matter must be disposed of in accordance with § 946.3.
##### 



Exhibit 15 The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Allied Capital Corporation: Re: Registration Statement
Nos. 333-45525, 333-13584, 333-88681, 333-101849, 333-115979,
333-115980, 333-115981, 333-130793, 333-130792 and 333-143409. Ladies and Gentlemen: With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness
of the use therein of our report dated
August 8, 2007 related to our review of
interim financial information. Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report is not
considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an accountant,
or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7
and 11 of the Act. /s/ KPMG LLP Washington, D.C.
August 8, 2007
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5353

To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 with respect to the marking of door

hinges.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 2, 2000

Mr. GEPHARDT (for himself, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, and Mr. RILEY)

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on

Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 with respect to the marking

of door hinges.

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

3 SECTION 1. MARKING OF DOOR HINGES.

4 Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.

5 1304) is amended—

6 (1) by redesignating subsection (l) as subsection

7 (m); and

8 (2) by inserting after subsection (k) the fol9 lowing new subsection:

10 ‘‘(l) MARKING OF CERTAIN DOOR HINGES.—
2

•HR 5353 IH

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para2 graph (2), no exception may be made under sub3 section (a)(3) with respect to door hinges and parts

4 thereof (except metal forgings and castings imported

5 for further processing into finished hinges and door

6 hinges designed for motor vehicles), each of which

7 shall be marked on the exposed surface of the hinge

8 when viewed after fixture with the English name of

9 the country of origin by means of die stamping,

10 cast-in-mold lettering, etching, or engraving.

11 ‘‘(2) OTHER MEANS OF MARKING.—If, because

12 of the nature of the article, it is not technically or

13 commercially feasible to mark it by 1 of the 4 meth14 ods specified in paragraph (1), the article may be

15 marked by an equally permanent method of marking

16 such as paint stenciling or, in the case of door

17 hinges of less than 3 inches in length, by marking

18 on the smallest unit of packaging utilized.’’.

19 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

20 The amendments made by section 1 apply to goods

21 entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption,

22 on and after the date that is 6 months after the date of

23 enactment of this Act.

Æ
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsScout trajectory error propagation computer programSince 1969, flight experience has been used as the basis for predicting Scout orbital accuracy. The data used for calculating the accuracy consists of errors in the trajectory parameters (altitude, velocity, etc.) at stage burnout as observed on Scout flights. Approximately 50 sets of errors are used in Monte Carlo analysis to generate error statistics in the trajectory parameters. A covariance matrix is formed which may be propagated in time. The mechanization of this process resulted in computer program Scout Trajectory Error Propagation (STEP) and is described herein. Computer program STEP may be used in conjunction with the Statistical Orbital Analysis Routine to generate accuracy in the orbit parameters (apogee, perigee, inclination, etc.) based upon flight experience.Document ID19860004450Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsMyler, T. R.*(Vought Corp. Dallas, TX, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1982Subject CategoryComputer Programming And SoftwareReport/Patent NumberREPT-2-53030/1R-52776NAS 1.26:166030NASA-CR-166030Accession Number86N13919Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 490-02-02-77CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-15000Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19860004450.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
§ 101-26.100-3 Warranties. Through its procurement sources and programs GSA provides for certain types of items and services which are covered by warranties. Such warranties allow ordering activities additional time after acceptance within which to assert a right to correct certain deficiencies in supplies or services furnished. The additional time period and the specific corrective actions for which the contractor is responsible are usually stated in the warranty. Items and services subject to warranties are normally identified by a warranty marking or notice. Such marking or notice will state that a warranty exists, its extent of coverage, its duration, and whom to notify concerning defects. Using activities shall take the following actions when items or services (except for automotive vehicles and components which are subject to the provisions of § 101-26.501-6) covered by warranty provisions are found to be defective during the warranty period. ( a ) Activities shall attempt to resolve all complaints where a warranty is involved. If the contractor replaces the item or corrects the deficiency, a Standard Form (SF) 368, Product Quality Deficiency Report, in duplicate, shall be sent to the GSA Discrepancy Reports Center (6FR), 1500 East Bannister Road, Kansas City, MO 64131-3088. The resolution of the case should be clearly stated in the text of the SF 368. This information will be maintained as a quality history file for use in future procurements.
( b ) If the contractor refuses to correct, or fails to replace, a defective item or an aspect of service under the warranty, an SF 368, in duplicate, along with copies of all pertinent correspondence, shall be submitted to the contracting officer in the appropriate GSA commodity center for necessary action. The address of the contracting officer is contained in the contract/purchase order, except for schedule items where the address is shown in the Federal Supply Schedule.
[56 FR 12456, Mar. 26, 1991]
##### 



Exhibit 15 The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Allied Capital Corporation: Re: Registration Statement
Nos. 333-45525, 333-13584, 333-88681, 333-101849, 333-115979,
333-115980, 333-115981, 333-130793, 333-130792 and 333-143409. Ladies and Gentlemen: With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness
of the use therein of our report dated
November 7, 2007 related to our review of
interim financial information. Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report is not
considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an accountant,
or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7
and 11 of the Act. /s/ KPMG LLP Washington, D.C.
November 7, 2007
#### § 3024.1 Applicability.

The rules in this part govern proceedings filed under 39 U.S.C. 3662 alleging violations of 39 U.S.C. 404a that meet the requirements of §§ 3022.2 and 3022.10 of this chapter.

[85 FR 9656, Feb. 19, 2020]
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5489 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5489

    To provide Capitol-flown flags to the families of deceased law 
                         enforcement officers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 18, 2000

Mr. Green of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide Capitol-flown flags to the families of deceased law 
                         enforcement officers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Law Enforcement Officers Flag 
Memorial Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. CAPITOL-FLOWN FLAGS FOR FAMILIES OF DECEASED LAW ENFORCEMENT 
              OFFICERS.

    (a) Authority.--
            (1) In general.--The family of a deceased law enforcement 
        officer may request, and the Attorney General shall provide to 
        such family, a Capitol-flown flag, which shall be supplied to 
        the Attorney General by the Architect of the Capitol. The 
        family shall pay the cost of such flag, including shipping.
            (2) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall take effect on the 
        date on which the Attorney General establishes the procedure 
        required by subsection (b).
    (b) Procedure.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Attorney General shall establish a procedure 
(including any appropriate forms) by which the family of a deceased law 
enforcement officer may request, and provide sufficient information to 
determine such officer's eligibility for, a Capitol-flown flag.
    (c) Applicability.--This Act shall only apply to a deceased law 
enforcement officer who died on or after the date of enactment of this 
Act.
    (d) Definitions.--In this Act--
            (1) the term ``Capitol-flown flag'' means a United States 
        flag flown over the United States Capitol in honor of the 
        deceased law enforcement officer for whom such flag is 
        requested; and
            (2) the term ``deceased law enforcement officer'' means a 
        person who was charged with protecting public safety, who was 
        authorized to make arrests by a Federal, State, or local law 
        enforcement agency, and who died while employed by such an 
        agency or after retiring in good standing from such an agency.
                                 <all>
```
§ 102-33.105 What minimum requirements must we put into our CAS contracts? At a minimum, your CAS contracts and agreements must require that any provider of CAS comply with— ( a ) Civil standards in 14 CFR that are applicable to the type of operation(s) you are asking the contractor to conduct;
( b ) Applicable military standards; or
( c ) Your agency's Flight Program Standards (see §§ 102-33.140 through 102-33.185 for the requirements for Flight Program Standards).