alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 66.05-20 Coast Guard-State agreements. ( a ) The District Commander in whose District a waterway is located may enter into agreements with State Administrators permitting a State to regulate aids to navigation, including regulatory markers, in State waters for private aids to navigation, as, in the opinion of the District Commander, the State is able to do in a manner to improve the safety of navigation. When a waterway is located within the area of jurisdiction of more than one Coast Guard District, the District Commander in whose District the State capital is located shall execute the agreement in behalf of the Coast Guard. All such agreements shall reserve to the District Commander the right to inspect the State aids to navigation without prior notice to the State. They shall stipulate that State aids to navigation will conform to the Uniform State Waterway marking System or to the U.S. Aids to Navigation System and that the State Administrator will modify or remove State aids to navigation without expense to the United States when so directed by the District Commander, subject to the right of appeal on the part of the State Administrator to the Commandant.
( b ) A Coast Guard-State agreement shall become effective when both parties have signed the agreements. In lieu of the procedure prescribed in § 66.01-5, the agreement shall constitute blanket approval by the Commandant, of the State aids to navigation, including regulatory markers, established or to be established in State waters for private aids to navigation designated or to be designated by the Commandant.
( c ) In addition to the matters set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, Coast Guard-State agreements shall cover the following points, together with such other matters as the parties find it desirable to include: ( 1 ) A description, in sufficient detail for publication in Notices to Mariners, of all aids to navigations under State jurisdiction in navigable waters of the United States in existence prior to the effective date of the agreement which have not been previously approved under procedures of § 66.01-5.
( 2 ) Procedures for use by the State administrator to notify the District Commander of changes made in State aids to navigation, as required by § 66.05-25.
( 3 ) If prior to December 21, 2003, specification of the marking system to be used, whether the U.S. Aids to Navigation System or the Uniform State Waterway Marking System.
( 4 ) Specification of standards as to minimum size and shape of markers, the use of identifying letters, the use of reflectors or retroreflective materials, and any other similar standards so as to enable Coast Guard inspectors to determine compliance with Statewide standards.
[CGD 86-031, 52 FR 42645, Nov. 6, 1987, as amended by CGD 97-018, 63 FR 33573, June 19, 1998]
#### § 102-2.70 What are individual and class deviations?

An individual deviation is intended to affect only one action. A class deviation is intended to affect more than one action (e.g., multiple actions, the actions of more than one agency, or individual agency actions that are expected to recur).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

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

EDWIN GARRISON, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al., 

Defendants.

_________________________________________/ 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Michael A. Pineiro, Esq., of the law firm Marcus Neiman Rashbaum & Pineiro LLP hereby 

enters his appearance as counsel on behalf of Defendant Kevin O’Leary and respectfully requests 

that copies of all future pleadings, orders, and other papers filed or served in this matter be served 

on him via CM/ECF or at the address listed below, as appropriate.

Date: January 31, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Michael A. Pineiro

Michael A. Pineiro

Florida Bar No. 41897

MARCUS NEIMAN RASHBAUM & 

PINEIRO LLP 

2 S. Biscayne Blvd. Ste. 2530

Miami, FL 33131

Telephone: (305) 400-4260

mpineiro@mnrlawfirm.com 

Counsel for Kevin O’Leary

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 31, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was 

served via CM/ECF on all counsel or parties of record.

By: /s/ Michael A. Pineiro

Michael A. Pineiro

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2023 Page 2 of 2
P.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

13DIV-C-45 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:24 AM Sheet 131 of 142 
P.2 

* 

Tom Driscoll 

07/26/2000 05:57 PAA 

3L-C- */«" 

To: Isr@dc2.hhlaw.com 

cc: Karen Blanchard/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Pam 

Smith/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA. Dennis 

Crumpler/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, AAike 

5ewell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Dave 

Svendsgaard/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jon 

Devine/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Holmes.Carol@EPA.GOV, Anna 

Wood/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

K 

Clnunttstcomplex. 

Leslie: 

Subject: Questions on your Clean Unit Test Issue Raper 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

Attached are questions concerning the clean unit test issue paper that we discussed yesterday. If 

you have any questions, please email me. 

thanks, 

Tom Driscoll 

OAQPS/ITPID/IIG (MD-12) 

(919) 541-5135 

7/26 - E-Mail from Tom Driscoll, EPA/OAQPS to 

Leslie Ritts, Hogan & Hartson 
P.3 

July 26,2000 

Questions on the "Clean Units Issue Paper" submitted as part of the July 20,2000 

Memorandum from Representatives of the NSR Reform "Complex Manufacturing Group" 

- Page 7, third paragraph: We are not aware of permit conditions that allow control equipment to 

be operating "virtually all times that the process, production, or manufacturing equipment is 

operated" and define virtually all times to be less than "all the time." This condition is not clear 

to us, but it might be perceived as allowing a unit to be out of compliance for the period of time 

such as the 2% in your example. Also, in the (2) section of this paragraph, although unsaid, did 

you intend for adequate compliance assurances measures to be determined through the permitting 

process for each Clean Unit Test? 

- Page 8, first paragraph: It is not clear what the effective date would be. 

- Page 8, table: Regarding control technologies, please clarify what we think we heard yesterday 

which seemed to be conflicting opinions on whether California control levels could or should 

apply to areas other than California. 

- Page 9, first bullet: We are not entirely clear on what is meant by the first bullet. Please 

explain. 

- Page 9, second bullet: We are not clear on what this bullets says, but we think you may mean 

points raised in past discussions regarding the changes allowed at a Clean Unit and that these 

changes would not be subject to minor NSR. Please clarify. 

- Page 9, fifth bullet: Does your reference to "waste minimization" refer to reductions in another 

media, such as RCRA reductions, where these reductions count toward the Clean Unit 

exemption? If so, what decision rules would you use? 

a
#### § 102-36.445 Do we report excess personal property originally acquired from or through the American National Red Cross?

Yes, when reporting excess personal property which was processed, produced, or donated by the American National Red Cross, note “RED CROSS PROPERTY” on the SF 120 or report document. GSA will offer to return this property to the Red Cross if no other federal agency has a need for it. If the Red Cross has no requirement, the property continues in the disposal process and is available for donation.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 19, 2006

s0712 

# Order

July 19, 2006

128579

DAYLE TRENTADUE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of MARGARETTE F. EBY, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128579 COA: 252207 Genesee CC: 02-074145-NZ
BUCKLER AUTOMATIC LAWN SPRINKLER COMPANY, SHIRLEY GORTON and LAURENCE W. GORTON, Defendants-Appellants,

and

JEFFREY GORTON, VICTOR NYBERG, TODD MICHAEL BAKOS, M FO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, and CARL F. BEKOFSKE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of RUTH R. MOTT, Deceased,
Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application f or leave to appeal the May 5, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is GRANTED. The parties are directed to include among the issues to be briefed whether the Court of Appeals application of a common law disc overy rule to determine when plaintiff’s claims accrued
is inconsistent with or contravenes MCL 6 00.5827, and whether previous decisions of this Court, which have recognized and app lied such a rule when MCL 600.5827 would otherwise control, should be overruled.
#### BENJAMIN P. LAMBERTSON, Respondent, *v.*GEORGE W. VAN BOSKERCK and another, Appellants.

*Order of arrresl—-when granted—tort—waiver of—estoppel.*

The defendants having been directed to purchase, with money of the plaintiff then in their hands, $4,000 of United States bonds, wrote to the plaintiff’s agents advising them of the purchase and the cost attending it. *Held,*that this letter operated as an estoppel upon the defendants, and prevented them from thereafter denying that they had purchased the bonds as therein stated.

After the alleged conversion of the bonds, defendants paid a part, of the claim made for their value. *Held,*that the receipt of this money did not waive the tort or absolve the wrong-doer from the consequences of his wrongful act *(Murray*v. *Burling,*10 Johns., 172; Sedg. on Dam., 492; *Reynolds*v. *Shuler,*5 Cow., 323; *Hibbard*v. *Stewart,*1 Hilt., 207; *Burns*v. *Morris,*4 Tyrw., 485; 2 Greenl. on Ev., 639; *Robbins*v. *Seithel,*20 How., 366; *Person v. Civer, 29*id., 432), hut merely operated in mitigation of the damages to be given.

Appeal from an order made at the Special Term, denying a motion to vacate an order of arrest.

*Theo. F.*Miller, for the appellants.

*Seargent P. Stearns,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Brady, J.

Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred.

Order affirmed with ten dollars costs besides disbursements.
AMERICAN CONSUMERS, INC.
                       NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE

                                   EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          THIRTEEN WEEKS ENDED
                                                       ---------------------------
                                                       September 2,    August 27,
                                                           2006           2005
                                                       -------------  ------------
<S>                                                    <C>            <C>
Net income (loss) for computing loss per common share  $      20,347  $    (3,901)
                                                       =============  ============


Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding during each period                             796,257      803,988
                                                       =============  ============


Net income (loss) per common share                     $       0.026  $    (0.005)
                                                       =============  ============
</TABLE>
Hillsborough

No. 79-029

#### Marion B. Dolan v. Maple Leaf Health Care Center, Inc. Epsom Manor Health Center, Inc.

May 23, 1979

*Richard E. Boyer,*of Nashua, by brief and orally for the plaintiff.

*Jean-Claude Sakellarios,*of Manchester, by brief and orally for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

Plaintiff brought suit against both defendants for damages arising out of an alleged breach of a contract of employment. Defendant Epsom Manor Health Center, Inc. moved for summary judgment and filed an affidavit of the administrator and officer in charge of Epsom Manor having authority to hire and fire. He stated that plaintiff was not employed by Epsom Manor but that he believed that she was employed by Maple Leaf Health Care Center, Inc.

Plaintiff filed a counter-affidavit in which she stated that it was her belief that she was an employee of both defendants, that the employee manual she was given was produced by both organizations, that the defendants are really one and the same organization with identical directors and officers, that she attended meetings at the request of both defendants and that she worked under the supervision of individuals of both defendants.

*425The trial court granted Epsom Manor’s motion, finding that no genuine issue of material fact existed. Plaintiff’s exception was transferred by *Goode,*J.

 Although a counter-affidavit must contain more than vague and general allegations, it need not contain all the evidence on an issue. *Arsenault v. Willis,*117 N.H. 980, 380 A.2d 264 (1977). It is sufficient that enough facts be stated to indicate that a genuine issue of fact exists so that the party should have an opportunity to prove the fact at trial. All reasonable doubts should be resolved against the movant. *Chemical Insecticide Co. v. State,*108 N.H. 126, 129, 229 A.2d 167, 169-70 (1967). We hold that the counter-affidavit in this case is sufficient to show the existence of a genuine issue of fact. The manner in which these two corporations with identical officers and directors operated and the way plaintiff was supervised could, when the evidence is all in, support a finding that plaintiff was employed by both corporations.

*Exception sustained.*
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5358

To amend title 13, United States Code, to provide that the term of office

of the Director of the Census shall be 5 years, to require that such

Director report directly to the Secretary of Commerce, and for other

purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 2, 2000

Mrs. MALONEY of New York (for herself, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. GONZALEZ, and

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To amend title 13, United States Code, to provide that

the term of office of the Director of the Census shall

be 5 years, to require that such Director report directly

to the Secretary of Commerce, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. DIRECTOR OF THE CENSUS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 21 of title 13, United

5 States Code, is amended to read as follows:
2

•HR 5358 IH

1 ‘‘§ 21. Director of the Census; duties; reporting

2 ‘‘(a) The Bureau shall be headed by a Director of

3 the Census, appointed by the President, by and with the

4 advice and consent of the Senate. The Director shall per5 form such duties as may be imposed upon him by law,

6 regulations, or orders of the Secretary, and shall report

7 directly to the Secretary.

8 ‘‘(b) The term of office of the Director shall be 5

9 years, and shall begin on January 1, 2002, and every fifth

10 year thereafter. Any individual appointed to fill a vacancy

11 in such position occurring before the expiration of the

12 term for which his predecessor was appointed shall be ap13 pointed for the remainder of that term. The Director may

14 serve after the end of his term until reappointed or until

15 the appointment of a successor, but not for a period of

16 more than 180 days.’’.

17 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

18 for chapter 1 of title 13, United States Code, is amended

19 by striking the item relating to section 21 and inserting

20 the following:

‘‘21. Director of the Census; duties; reporting.’’.

21 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

22 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This Act shall take effect on

23 January 1, 2002.

24 (b) TRANSITION PROVISIONS.—If, upon the effective

25 date of this Act, the position of Director of the Census
3

•HR 5358 IH

1 would become vacant, the individual serving in that posi2 tion immediately before such effective date may continue

3 to serve as Director until either such individual or a suc4 cessor is appointed in accordance with the amendment

5 made by section 1(a), but not for a period of more than

6 180 days.

Æ
### NUMBER 13

- 14

- 00 581

- CV


## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

LUPE RIVERA , Appellant,

v.

LETICIA “LETTY” LOPEZ , Appellee.

On a ppeal from the 370th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.



## ORDER

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

Appellant, Lupe Rivera
, has filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment in this
case pursuant to the Texas Election Code. See T EX

. E LEC

. C ODE A NN . § 232.014 (West,
Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). According to h is notice of appeal, the trial court signed

an order ordering a new election in this case on September 2 5 , 2014. The trial court has2

not entered an order pertaining to the deadline for filing the trial court record in the
appellate court or entered any other orders to expedite the appeal. See id.
Accordingly, the Court orders the clerk’s record and reporters’ record to be filed in
this cause within ten days from the date of this order. Appellant’s br ief will then be due
within fourteen days from the date that the appellate record has been filed, and appellee’s
brief will be due seven days thereafter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 20 th day of October
, 20 1 4

.
#### § 102-33.460 What is our responsibility in relation to C-AMIS?

If you use a management information system to provide data to FAIRS by batch upload, you are responsible for ensuring that your system is C-AMIS-compliant (see § 102-33.195). For more information on compliance with C-AMIS, contact GSA's Aviation Policy Division at (202) 208-0519 or (202) 997-7274.
#### § 954.24 Official record.

The pleadings, orders, exhibits, transcript of testimony, briefs, decisions and other documents filed in the proceeding constitute the official record of the proceeding.
1

Request for AmeriCorps VISTA Relocation Assistance Form

AmeriCorps VISTA requires VISTA members to submit this form to obtain financial assistance for 

relocation. Members must complete and submit this form to VMSU@americorps.gov

The allowance for relocation is financial assistance to help offset the costs associated with relocating to 

a new community for VISTA service. The assistance consists of a one-time Settling-In Allowance of $750 

and a Relocation Travel Allowance. The Relocation Travel Allowance is based on the direct mileage 

between your physical address immediately prior to relocation and your VISTA project site’s address.

This allowance is calculated at $0.40 per mile and is paid eight to ten weeks after your relocation 

voucher is approved.

VISTA candidates and members are eligible for relocation assistance if they:

1. are enrolled for a 12-month term of service, AND

2. relocate more than 50 miles from their physical address immediately prior to relocation, to the

physical address of your project site.

If you are eligible, and have relocated, or will relocate prior to starting service, please complete and sign 

this form and return it to VMSU@americorps.gov.

By completing and signing this form, you are certifying that you have relocated, or will relocate prior to 

starting service. 

AmeriCorps VISTA will review your completed form upon receipt, and if eligible, will begin processing 

your Relocation Allowance funds after you have been activated for service. Please be advised that if you

receive Relocation Assistance, but do not relocate for service, AmeriCorps may seek to recoup those 

funds.

Please provide the following addresses:

Physical Address Relocated/Relocating FROM:

Street Address:

City: State: Zip Code:

Project Site Address:

Street Address:

City: State: Zip Code:
2

CERTIFICATION

By typing your name in the signature block, you are certifying that you have relocated for service, or will 

be relocating prior to starting service, with AmeriCorps VISTA and that you understand that if you do not

relocate that AmeriCorps may seek to recoup relocation assistance funds from you.

I, , hereby certify that I have relocated, or will be relocating prior to the start of service,

with AmeriCorps VISTA. I understand that AmeriCorps may seek to recoup relocation assistance 

funds from me if I do not relocate. 

Signature: Date:
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Polar Programs (1209).                    

*Date and Time:*                         June 21-23, 2000, 8:00 am-5:30 pm.                    

*Place:*                         Business School of the University of Wisconsin, 975 University Avenue, Room 110 of Grainger Hall, Madison, WI 53706.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. John Lynch, Program Manager, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA 22230. (703) 306-1033.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning “ICECUBE” proposal submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate   “ICECUBE” proposal as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposal being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposal. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

*Reason for Late Notice:*                         This notice is late due to difficulty in scheduling.                    

#  Note: 

Closed portions are proper under Sunshine Act exemptions cited. The CMO's signature on this Notice is the required determination.

Dated: June 12, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-15222 Filed 6-15-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M