alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO.: 0:22-cv-61760-AHS

RUDOLPH BETANCOURT, individually,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FLANIGAN’S ENTERPRISES, INC., a

Florida Corporation,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

DEFENDANT, FLANIGAN’S ENTERPRISES, INC.’S, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, the Defendant, FLANIGAN’S ENTERPRISES, INC. (“Flanigan’s), by 

and through its undersigned attorneys, and answers the Plaintiff’s Complaint as follows:

1. The Defendant admits the allegations of paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 13, 14 and 15 of the 

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

2. The Defendant denies each and every other material allegation of the Plaintiff’s 

Complaint not specifically admitted above and demands strict proof thereof.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

3, As a separate and affirmative defense, the Defendant would state the Plaintiff has 

failed to mitigate his damages in that the Plaintiff has failed to request accommodation prior to 

filing suit. Defendant has at all times material hereto been willing to voluntarily accommodate the 

Plaintiff.

3. As a separate and affirmative defense, the Defendant would state that while it 

denies the allegations of the Plaintiff’s Complaint, to the extent that any violations of the ADA 

exist, the Defendant is willing to voluntarily remedy any alleged violations without the need of 

litigation.

4. As a separate and affirmative defense, the Defendant would state that while it 

denies the allegations of the Plaintiff’s Complaint, to the extent that any violations of the ADA 

exist, it is only due to the fact that accommodation was not readily achievable.

Case 0:22-cv-61760-AHS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 1 of 2
5. As a separate and affirmative defense, the Defendant would state that the Plaintiff

has not been obligated to obtain legal counsel, but that the Defendant has at all times been willing 

to voluntarily remedy any ADA violations brought to the Defendant’s attention without the 

necessity of Plaintiff obtaining counsel or bringing litigation.

6. As a separate and affirmative defense, the Defendant would allege that the subject 

property was inspected and approved by the local building official.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant demands judgment in its favor, including an award of costs.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 28, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, I also certify that the foregoing document 

is being served this day on counsel of record in this action, John Fuller, Esq., Fuller, Fuller & 

Associates, Attorney for Plaintiff, 12000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 502, North Miami, Fl 33181

(jpf@fullerfuller.com and jpfuller17@gmail.com).

ROBERTS & BASNUEVO, P.A.

Attorneys for Defendant

113 Almeria Avenue

Coral Gables, Fl 33134

Telephone: 305-442-1700

Fax: 305-442-2559

E-mail: roberts@robertspa.com

By: /s/: H. Clay Roberts

 H. CLAY ROBERTS, ESQ.

 Fla. Bar No.: 262307

Case 0:22-cv-61760-AHS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 2 of 2
#### § 404.439 Partial monthly benefits; excess earnings of the individual charged against his benefits and the benefits of persons entitled (or deemed entitled) to benefits on his earnings record.

Deductions are made against the total family benefits where the excess earnings (as described in [§ 404.430](/on/2024-09-20/title-20/section-404.430)) of an individual entitled to old-age insurance benefits are charged to a month and require deductions in an amount less than the total family benefits payable on his earnings record for that month (including the amount of a mother's or child's insurance benefit payable to a spouse who is deemed entitled on the individual's earnings record—see [§ 404.420](/on/2024-09-20/title-20/section-404.420)). The difference between the total benefits payable and the deductions made under the annual earnings test for such month is paid (if otherwise payable under title II of the Act) to each person in the proportion that the benefit to which each is entitled (before the application of the reductions described in [§ 404.403](/on/2024-09-20/title-20/section-404.403) for the family maximum, [§ 404.407](/on/2024-09-20/title-20/section-404.407) for entitlement to more than one type of benefit, and section 202(q) of the Act for entitlement to benefits before retirement age) and before the application of [§ 404.304(f)](/on/2024-09-20/title-20/section-404.304#p-404.304(f)) to round to the next lower dollar bears to the total of the benefits to which all of them are entitled, except that the total amount payable to any such person may not exceed the benefits which would have been payable to that person if none of the insured individual's excess earnings had been charged to that month.

# Example:

A is entitled to an old-age insurance benefit of $165 and his wife is entitled to $82.50 before rounding, making a total of $247.50. After A's excess earnings have been charged to the appropriate months, there remains a partial benefit of $200 payable for October, which is apportioned as follows:

| | Original benefit | Fraction of original | Benefit1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| A | $165 | 2/3 | $133 |
| Wife | 82.50 | 1/3 | 66 |
| Total | 247.50 | | 199 |
| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 After deductions for excess earnings and after rounding per [§ 404.304(f)](/on/2024-09-20/title-20/section-404.304#p-404.304(f)). | | | |

[[38 FR 9429](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/38-FR-9429), Apr. 16, 1973, as amended at [38 FR 17717](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/38-FR-17717), July 3, 1973; [43 FR 8133](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/43-FR-8133), Feb. 28, 1978; [48 FR 46149](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/48-FR-46149), Oct. 11, 1983]
**EXHIBIT11.1DUKE-WEEKS REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIPEARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES CALCULATION(in thousands)**

** **

 
|                                                      | **DECEMBER 31,** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|------------------|
|                                                      | **2000******     |
| Consolidated net  income  available for common units | $245,029         |
| Dividends on  preferred units                             | 57,389           |
| Gain on land and  depreciated property sales              | (58,057)         |
| Interest expense                                          | 133,948****      |
|    earnings  before fixed charges          | $378,309****     |
| Interest expense                                          | $133,948         |
| Dividends on  preferred units                             | 57,389           |
| Interest costs  capitalized                               | 32,980****       |
|    total  fixed charges                    | $224,317****     |
| **Fixed charge ratio**                                    | **1.69******     |
##### 



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 amendment to
the Annual Report of CanWest Global Communications Corp.
(the Company) on Form 20-F/A for the period ending August 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, John Maguire, Vice-President, 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; and                              
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Company.

| |  |                                                    
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ John Maguire                                   
| |  |                                                    
| |  | John Maguire                                       
| |  | Vice-President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
| |  | June 18, 2003                                      

A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to CanWest Global
Communications Corp. and will be retained by CanWest Global
Communications Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7332
LEONARD BELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusDAVID GRAHAM, Assistant Warden, Brunswick Correctional Center; MARVALENA SIMMONS, Counselor, Brunswick Correctional Center; LOUIS B. CIE, Chairman, Central Classification Board; JOHN ME TZER, Former Parole Chairman; BRUCEMORRIS, Acting Chairman; UNKNOWN PAROLE INTERVIEWER; VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-154-2) Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 11, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Leonard Bell, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bell v. Graham , No. CA-96-154-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 9, 1997). We dispensewith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 102-42.60 Who is responsible for gifts and decorations received by Senators and Senate employees?

Gifts and decorations received by Senators and Senate employees are deposited with the Secretary of the Senate for disposal by the Commission on Art and Antiquities of the United States Senate under 5 U.S.C. 7342(e)(2). GSA is responsible for disposing of gifts or decorations received by Members and employees of the House of Representatives.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1565]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting; Notice

AGENCY:  U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

TIME AND DATE:  Wednesday, January 26, 2000, 2:00 p.m.

LOCATION:  Room 410, East-West Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS:  Closed to the Public.

Matter to be Considered:  

Compliance Status Report:  
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-0709.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:  Sadye E. Dunn, Office of 
the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20207 (301) 504-
0800.

    Dated: January 14, 2000.
Sadye E. Dunn,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-1565 Filed 1-18-00; 3:39 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
-cr-06241-WJZ Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2000 P
-cr-06241-WJZ Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2000 P
-cr-06241-WJZ Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2000 P
-cr-06241-WJZ Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2000 P
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 38559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15549]



[[Page 38559]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Health Care Financing Administration; Statement of Organization, 
Functions, and Delegations of Authority

    Part F, of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and 
Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human 
Services, Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), 49 FR 34247, 
dated September 6, 1984, is amended to include the following delegation 
of authority from the Secretary to the Administrator, HCFA, for 
carrying out Title XXII of the Public Health Service Act, as amended.
    <bullet> Section F.30., Delegations of Authority is amended by 
adding the following paragraph:
    vv. The authority vested in the Secretary by Title XXII of the 
Public Health Service Act, as amended.
    This delegation shall be exercised under the Department's policy on 
issuance of regulations. In addition, I hereby affirm and ratify any 
actions taken by the Administrator, or other HCFA officials which, in 
effect, involved the exercise of this authority prior to the effective 
date of this delegation. This delegation is effective immediately, and 
may be further redelegated. This delegation of authority supersedes the 
memorandum from the Secretary to the Assistant Secretary for Health, 
dated March 2, 1987, entitled ``Delegation of Authority for Title XXII 
of the Public Health Service Act, Public Law 99-272, Section 10003.''

    Dated: June 12, 2000.
Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-15549 Filed 6-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-03-M
<PAGE> 
                                                                   Exhibit 11.2
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               HELPMATE ROBOTICS INC.
                                                         CALCULATION OF NET LOSS PER COMMON
                                                                        SHARE
                                                       -------------------------------------
                                                                        YEAR
                                                                        ENDED
SUPPLEMENTAL EARNINGS PER SHARE                                       12/31/96
                                                      ---------------------------------------
<S>                                                    <C>
Historical
Net Loss Applicable to Common Shareholders...........               $  (5,057,858)
                                                                  ----------------------
                                                                  ----------------------
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding...........                   5,844,084
Incremental Shares Issuable Pursuant to SAB Topic
  4D.................................................                       3,697
Shares Applicable to Convertible Preferred Stock.....                     153,847
                                                                   ----------------------
Total Shares.........................................                   6,001,628
                                                                   ----------------------
                                                                   ----------------------
Historical Net Loss Per Common Share.................               $       (0.84)
                                                                   ----------------------
                                                                   ----------------------

</TABLE>
#### § 102-37.415 What should a SASP do if an applicant appeals a negative eligibility determination?

If an applicant appeals a negative eligibility determination, forward complete documentation on the appeal request, including your comments and recommendations, to the applicable GSA regional office for review and coordination with GSA headquarters. GSA's decision will be final.
§ 102-38.140 What must we include in the public notice on sale of personal property? In the public notice, you must provide information necessary for potential buyers to participate in the sale, such as— ( a ) Date, time and location of sale;
( b ) General categories of property being offered for sale;
( c ) Inspection period;
( d ) Method of sale (i.e., spot bid, sealed bid, auction);
( e ) Selling agency; and
( f ) Who to contact for additional information.
#### § 102-33.15 How does this part relate to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations?

This part does not supersede any of the regulations in 14 CFR Chapter I, “Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.”
#### § 102-42.120 When may gifts or decorations be donated to State agencies?

If there is no Federal requirement for the gifts or decorations, and if gifts were not sold to the employee, GSA may make the gifts or decorations available for donation to State agencies under this subpart and part 102-37 of this subchapter B.

[65 FR 45539, July 24, 2000, as amended at 71 FR 28778, May 18, 2006]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIE MORRIS CLAY, II,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MARK PETERSON, Chief District

Attorney; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 15-16320

D.C. No. 5:14-cv-02932-RMW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 26, 2016** 

Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Willie Morris Clay, II, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

defamation of character. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

FILED

AUG 05 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443,

447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Clay’s action because Clay failed to

allege facts sufficient to show that defendants’ allegedly defamatory statement

altered or extinguished a state-recognized right or status. See Paul v. Davis, 424

U.S. 693, 710-12 (1976) (to state a defamation claim under § 1983, plaintiff must

allege that a state-recognized right or status was altered or extinguished in addition

to any reputational harm).

AFFIRMED.

2 15-16320
#### § 102-118.125 What if my agency uses a TD other than a GBL?

If your agency uses any other TD for shipping under its account, the requisite and the named safeguards must be in place (i.e., terms and conditions found herein and in the “U.S. Government Freight Transportation—Handbook,” appropriate numbering, etc.).
§ 102-117.20 Are any agencies exempt from this part? ( a ) The Department of Defense is exempted from this part by an agreement under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 501 *et seq.*), except for the rules to debar or suspend a TSP under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4).
( b ) Subpart D of this part, covering household goods, does not apply to the uniformed service members, under Title 37 of the United States Code, “Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services,” including the uniformed service members serving in civilian agencies such as the U.S. Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Public Health Service.
[65 FR 60061, Oct. 6, 2000, as amended at 87 FR 32322, May 31, 2022]
§ 102-38.70 May the holding agency abandon or destroy personal property either prior to or after trying to sell it? ( a ) Yes, the holding agency may abandon or destroy personal property either prior to or after trying to sell it, but only when an authorized agency official has made a written determination that— ( 1 ) The personal property has no commercial value; or
( 2 ) The estimated cost of continued care and handling would exceed the estimated sales proceeds.
( b ) In addition to the provisions in paragraph (a) of this section, see the regulations at §§ 102-36.305 through 102-36.330 of this subchapter B that are applicable to the abandonment or destruction of personal property in general, and excess personal property in particular.
[68 FR 51421, Aug. 26, 2003, as amended at 73 FR 20803, Apr. 17, 2008]
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - 40 CFR Part 52 
          - [MD 080-3037; FRL-6716-9] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

# ACTION:

Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking. 

# SUMMARY:

                        On January 26, 1999 (64 FR 3906), EPA proposed to approve the State of Maryland's regulations for Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Budget Program (commonly referred to as the NOX                         Budget Rule) as a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Prior to our taking any final rulemaking, Maryland informed us that it was revising the rule. On November 18, 1999, Maryland submitted a new SIP revision request to EPA which consists of the revised version of its NOX                         Budget Rule. Because the State of Maryland has now submitted the revised version of its NOX                         Budget Rule as a SIP revision, we are withdrawing our January 26, 1999 proposed rule on the old version. EPA will initiate a new and separate rulemaking on the Maryland's November 18, 1999 SIP revision submittal.                     

# DATES:

This proposed rule is withdrawn as of June 16, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cristina Fernandez (215) 814-2178, or by e-mail at fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 

# List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

      - Environmental protection
      - Air pollution control
      - Ozone
      - Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

Dated: June 2, 2000. 

Bradley M. Campbell, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 00-15156 Filed 6-15-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P