alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>     0001003464
<NAME>     Endocare Inc.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                     7364951
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               958145
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                1278785
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           9768850
<PP&E>                                     1507208
<DEPRECIATION>                              544488
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            12996373
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      3323783
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     11248
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              12996373
<SALES>                                    3461874
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           3461874
<CGS>                                      1684668
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              1684668
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          10565403
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          791842
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (9264175)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (9264175)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                              (9264175)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.86)



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

MODEL ME KIDS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

MODEL-ME-KIDS, INC.,

Defendant.

 

 Case No. 1:22-cv-23871-JEM

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal With Prejudice (ECF No. 19), filed on February 20, 2023. The Court has 

carefully reviewed the Notice, the record in this case and applicable law and is 

otherwise fully advised. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that 

1. Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 

above-styled action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida this day of 

, 2023. 

JOSE E. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies provided to all counsel of record

Case 1:22-cv-23871-JEM Document 19-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2023 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


                            HINES HORTICULTURE, INC.


                                                                    Exhibit 21.1
                                                                    ------------

                List of Subsidiaries of Hines Horticulture, Inc.

            The following is a list of subsidiaries of Hines Horticulture, Inc.
(the "Company"). The common stock of all the corporations listed below are
wholly owned, directly or indirectly, by the Company. If indented, the
corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the corporation under which it is
listed.

Name of Corporation                                Jurisdiction of Incorporation
-------------------                                -----------------------------

Hines Horticulture, Inc.                                      Delaware
   Hines Nurseries, Inc.                                      California
       Hines SGUS, Inc.                                       Nevada
       Enviro-Safe Laboratories, Inc.                         Florida
250 E Street SW

Washington, D.C. 20525

202-606-5000/ 800-942-2677

State of Maine Identification Form for 

Truescreen Criminal History Check

Per Maine state statute, individuals may not upload an image of a photo ID from 

Maine to Truescreen.

Individuals should upload an alternate government-issued photo ID for the 

Truescreen process, if one is available. If your only government-issued photo ID is 

issued by Maine, please complete and upload this form. 

Full Name, as it appears on Maine Government-issued Photo ID: 

Maine Driver’s License/Photo ID Number: 

Date of Birth, as it appears on Maine Government-issued Photo ID: 

I certify that I do not have an alternate government-issued photo ID available 

for use in the Truescreen process and only have available a driver’s license 

and/or photo ID issued by the state of Maine to serve as my government-issued 

photo ID for the purposes of AmeriCorps National Service Criminal History Check. 

I certify that the information above is accurate. 

Signature:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-cv-23634-JEM

LOUDMILA BOURLAKOVA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ANTHONY VIRGIL RAFTOPOL, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND

REQUEST FOR SERVICE OF PAPERS 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned, PETER H. LEVITT, and the law firm 

of SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP, hereby enters an appearance as counsel of record for Defendant 

ANAHILL STIFTUNG, and respectfully requests that all pleadings, orders, notices, and other 

court papers in this action be served on them at the below address. This appearance is not a 

consent to jurisdiction, an acceptance of service, a waiver of service or a waiver of any 

objections to jurisdiction or venue or of any other defenses or objections that may be raised 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b).

Dated: November 15, 2022.

/s/ Peter H. Levitt 

Peter H. Levitt, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 650978

SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP

200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4100

Miami, Florida 33131

Tel.: (305) 358-6300

Fax: (305) 415-9847

plevitt@shutts.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ANAHILL 

STIFTUNG

Case 1:22-cv-23634-JEM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 22-cv-23634-JEM

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on November 15, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic 

filing to all counsel of record.

/s/ Peter H. Levitt

Peter H. Levitt

Case 1:22-cv-23634-JEM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 2 of 2
§ 102-74.585 What Federal facility telework policy must Executive agencies follow? Executive agencies must follow these telework policies: ( a ) In accordance with Section 359 of Public Law 106-346, each Executive agency must establish a policy under which eligible employees of the agency may participate in telecommuting to the maximum extent possible without diminished employee performance. Public 106-346 became effective on October 23, 2000, and required the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to ensure the application and implementation of Section 359 to 25 percent of the Federal workforce by April 2001, and to an additional 25 percent of such workforce each year thereafter. Thus, the law provides that its requirements must be applied to 100 percent of the Federal workforce by April 2004.
( b ) In accordance with 40 U.S.C. 587, when considering whether to acquire any space, quarters, buildings, or other facilities for use by employees of any Executive agency, the head of that agency shall consider whether the need for the facilities can be met using alternative workplace arrangements.
MEMORANDUM

DATE: March 23, 2015

TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR-2013-0602

FROM: Rob Lawrence

EPA/Region 6/PD

SUBJECT: March 19, 2015 Presentation to a Louisiana environmental conference organized 

by the Louisiana Solid Waste Association. The panel discussed the Proposed 

Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants.

SUMMARY

A panel presentation was made by EPA at a Louisiana environmental conference 

organized by the Louisiana Solid Waste Association. The panel discussed the Proposed Carbon 

Power Plan for Existing Power Plants, which was proposed on June 2, 2014. The meeting was in 

Lafayette, Louisiana.

ATTENDEES

Participants: The conference was large and participants in individual sessions did not 

sign in.

EPA Participant: Rob Lawrence (Region 6 Energy Policy Advisor)
#### § 102-40.20 To whom do “we,” “you,” and their variants refer?

The pronouns “we,” “you,” and their variants throughout this part refer to the executive agency, or other entity using these regulations, unless otherwise indicated.
§ 102-34.20 What motor vehicles are not covered by this part? Motor vehicles not covered by this part are: ( a ) Military design motor vehicles;
( b ) Motor vehicles used for military field training, combat, or tactical purposes;
( c ) Motor vehicles used principally within the confines of a regularly established military post, camp, or depot; and
( d ) Motor vehicles regularly used by an agency to perform investigative, law enforcement, or intelligence duties, if the head of the agency determines that exclusive control of the vehicle is essential for effective performance of duties, although such vehicles are subject to subpart D and subpart J of this part.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-48,055-02

IN RE MICHAEL LYNN LEE, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 3824-A IN THE 100 DISTRICT COURT th

FROM HALL COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus

in the 100 District Court of Hall County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and that the th

application has not yet been forwarded to this Court.

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the District Clerk of Hall

County, is ordered to file a response, which may be made by submitting the record on such habeas

corpus application, submitting a copy of a timely filed order which designates issues to be

investigated (see McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that
2

Relator has not filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in Hall County. Should the response

include an order designating issues, proof of the date the district attorney’s office was served with

the habeas application and that the 180-day time frame set out in TEX.R. APP. P. 73.4(b)(5) has not

expired shall also be submitted with the response. This application for leave to file a writ of

mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the appropriate response. Such

response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: October 10, 2018

Do not publish
#### THE NATIONAL BANK OF FORT EDWARD, Respondent, *v.*JAMES GOODWIN, Appellant, and AMOS H. COBB, Survivors, etc.

*Order*— made *in one district staying proceedings in an action in another*— *effect*of— *when not vacated.*

Appeal from an order made at the Special Term, vacating an order staying proceedings in this action. On December 11, 1874, an order was made in an action pending in the first district, which was brought to settle the affairs of the firm of which the defendants were the survivors, staying all proceedings in this action, which was brought in the fourth district, to secure the payment of an indebtedness due from the said firm to the plaintiff. On the sixteenth of November an order was made in this action, vacating and setting aside the order of December eleventh.

The General Term *held,*that as the papers upon which the order was granted in the action pending in the first district, staying plaintiff’s proceedings in this action pending in the fourth district, were not before it, it was not in a situation to say that such order was improperly granted. If it was improperly granted, it was either void or voidable. If void, the plaintiff was not bound by it, and could disregard it. If irregular, and therefore voidable, the plaintiff had two remedies.

First. To apply, under the authority granted in the order, for its correction or amendment; or,

Second! To appeal from the order, to the General Term of the first district.

But in no event would it be proper for the plaintiff to move in the fourth district, to set aside an order, granted on a full hearing in the first district, in an action there pending, even though the *482obnoxious order affected, plaintiff’s conduct of his action in the fourth district.

Such practice would lead to great confusion and conflict, and would be mischievous in its effects. That undoubtedly the court in the first district would correct any error into which it might have fallen, if any such existed, upon a proper application there made.

*Henry H. Demies*and *James MeWamee,*for the appellant. *A. D. Waite,*for the respondent.

Opinion

*per Curiam.*

Present —Learned, P. J., Bocees and Boardman, JJ.

Order reversed, without costs to either party.
Editorial Note on Part 101-8
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 101-8 appear at 68 FR 51374, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 101-8.310 New construction. ( a ) *Design and construction.* Each facility or part of a facility constructed by, on behalf of, or for the use of a recipient shall be designed and constructed in a manner that the facility or part of the facility is readily accessible to, and usable by, handicapped persons, if the construction began after the effective date of this subpart.
( b ) *Alteration.* Each facility or part of a facility which is altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of a recipient after the effective date of this subpart in a manner that affects or could affect the usability of the facility or part of the facility shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be altered in a manner that the altered portion of the facility is readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons.
( c ) *GSA Accessibility Standard.* Design, construction, or alteration of facilities shall be in conformance with the “GSA Accessibility Standard,” PBS (PCD): DG6, October 14, 1980. A copy of the standard can be obtained through the Business Service Centers, General Services Administration, National Capital Region, 7th and D Streets, SW., Washington, DC 20407 or Regional Business Service Centers, Region 1, John W. McCormack, Post Office and Courthouse, Boston, Massachusetts 02109; Region 2, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10007; Region 3, Ninth and Market Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107; Region 4, 75 Spring Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303; Region 5, 230 South Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois 60604; Region 6, 1500 East Bannister Road, Kansas City, Missouri 64131; Region 7, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102; Region 8, Building 41, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225; Region 9, 525 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105; Region 10, GSA Center, Auburn, Washington 98002.
In cases of practical difficulty, unnecessary hardship, or extreme differences, exceptions may be granted from the literal requirements of the above-mentioned standard, as defined in §§ 101-19.604 and 101-19.605 (“Exceptions” and “Waiver or modification of standards”), but only when it is clearly evident that equal facilitation and protection are thereby secured.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

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

EDWIN GARRISON, et al. on behalf of 

themselves and all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al.,

Defendants. 

__________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO APPEAR 

PRO HAC VICE, CONSENT TO DESIGNATION AND REQUEST TO

ELECTRONICALLY RECEIVE NOTICES OF ELECTRONIC FILING

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on the Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for 

David Boies, Esq., Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of 

Electronic Filing (the “Motion”), pursuant to the Rules Governing the Admission, Practice, Peer 

Review, and Discipline of Attorneys in the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida and Section 2B of the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. This Court having considered 

the motion and all other relevant factors, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

The Motion is GRANTED. David Boies, Esq. may appear and participate in this action on 

behalf of Plaintiff, Edwin Garrison. The Clerk shall provide electronic notification of all electronic 

filings to David Boies, Esq., at dboies@bsfllp.com. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this __ day of November, 2022.

 

HONORABLE K. MICHAEL MOORE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: All Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 7-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2022 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5388 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 5388

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 25 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate a building proposed to be located within the boundaries of 
the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, as the ``Herbert H. Bateman 
                 Education and Administrative Center''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    A building proposed to be located within the boundaries of the 
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, on Assateague Island, Virginia, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Herbert H. Bateman Education and 
Administrative Center''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Herbert H. Bateman Education 
and Administrative Center''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 24, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Case 1:22-cr-20414-RNS   Document 19   Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2023   Page 1 of 3

Case 1:22-cr-20414-RNS   Document 19   Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2023   Page 2 of 3

Case 1:22-cr-20414-RNS   Document 19   Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2023   Page 3 of 3
#### §§ 101-25.302-3-101-25.302-4 [Reserved]
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
Endocare, Inc.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-30405) on Form S-8 of Endocare, Inc. of our report dated February 15, 1999,
except as to the second paragraph of Note 7, the fourth paragraph of Note 8, and
Note 15, which are as of March 10, 1999, March 26, 1999 and March 5, 1999,
respectively, relating to the balance sheets of Endocare, Inc. as of December
31, 1998 and 1997, and the related statements of operations,
shareholders'/division equity (deficiency) and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998, and the related schedule,
which report appears in the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of
Endocare, Inc.


                                               /s/ KPMG LLP


Orange County, California
March 31, 1998
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.<TABLE> <S> <C><ARTICLE>    5<LEGEND>    THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROMTHE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN CONSUMERS, INC. FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIODENDED SEPTEMBER 2, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCHFINANCIAL STATEMENTS.<S>                                                      <C><PERIOD-TYPE>                                          3-MOS<PERIOD-START><FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                Jun-03-2000<PERIOD-END>                                     Sep-02-2000<CASH>                                             1,700,982<SECURITIES>                                               0<RECEIVABLES>                                        100,133<ALLOWANCES>                                               0<INVENTORY>                                        1,607,561<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   3,430,893<PP&E>                                             2,957,093<DEPRECIATION>                                     2,477,571<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     3,910,415<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1,366,743<BONDS>                                                    0<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0<PREFERRED>                                                0<COMMON>                                              83,562<OTHER-SE>                                         2,392,004<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       3,910,415<SALES>                                            6,400,096<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   6,400,096<CGS>                                              4,892,740<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      4,892,740<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   1,521,012<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     5,776<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        5,849<INCOME-TAX>                                           2,649<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    3,200<DISCONTINUED>                                             0<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0<CHANGES>                                                  0<NET-INCOME>                                           3,200<EPS-BASIC>                                            0.004<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.004</TABLE>
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 668

To establish a uniform closing time for the operation of polls on the date

of the election of the President and Vice President.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 10, 1999

Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. LANTOS) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

A BILL

To establish a uniform closing time for the operation of

polls on the date of the election of the President and

Vice President.

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 ‘‘Uniform Poll Closing

5 Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF UNIFORM POLL CLOSING TIME

7 ON PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DAY.

8 For each election of a President and Vice President

9 held on the Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in Novem10 ber (beginning with the election in 2000), the polls in each
2

•HR 668 IH

1 State and the District of Columbia shall close at 11 p.m.

2 eastern standard time.

Æ