alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-22878-DPG

AMIR SAMANA,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNIFI AVIATION, LLC, formerly doing

business as DAL GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant.

/

STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, AMIR SAMANA (“Plaintiff”), and Defendant, UNIFI AVIATION, LLC, 

formerly known as DAL GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC (“Defendant”), by and through their 

respective counsel and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), stipulate and 

agree to the voluntary dismissal with prejudice as to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant in the 

above-captioned matter, with both parties agreeing to be responsible for their respective fees and 

costs. 

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

Wells Fargo Center

333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700

Miami, Florida 33131

Tel: (305) 400-7500

Fax: (305) 603-2552

By: /s/ Aaron Reed .

Aaron Reed

Florida Bar No. 557153

E-mail: areed@littler.com

Eric M. Schultz (admitted pro hac vice)

Georgia Bar No. 452742

E-mail: eschultz@littler.com

/s/ Kyle T. MacDonald

Kyle T. MacDonald, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 1038749

DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC

701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1310

Miami, FL 33131

Tel: (305) 946-1884

Fax: (305) 503-6741

Kyle@dereksmithlaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-22878-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2023 Page 1 of 3
2

[Certificate of service on the following page]

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

3424 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1200

Atlanta, Georgia 30326

Tel: (404) 443-2432 

Fax: (404) 537-1914

Counsel for Defendant 

Case 1:22-cv-22878-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2023 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this 8th day of March, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

document was served on all counsel of record on the Service List below via transmission of Notices 

of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.

By: /s/ Kyle T. MacDonald 

 Kyle T. MacDonald, Esq.

SERVICE LIST

Counsel for Defendant: 

Aaron Reed

Email: areed@littler.com

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

Wells Fargo Center

333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700

Miami, Florida 33131

Tel: (305) 400-7500

Fax: (305) 603-2552

Eric M. Schultz

Email: eschultz@littler.com

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

3424 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1200

Atlanta, GA 30326

Tel: (404) 443-2432

Fax: (404) 537-1914

/s/ Kyle T. MacDonald

Kyle T. MacDonald, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 1038749

DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC

701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1310

Miami, FL 33131

Tel: (305) 946-1884

Fax: (305) 503-6741

Kyle@dereksmithlaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-22878-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2023 Page 3 of 3
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5604

To authorize funding for certain housing assistance to increase the availability

of affordable housing.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 30, 2000

Ms. LOFGREN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To authorize funding for certain housing assistance to

increase the availability of affordable housing.

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 ‘‘Affordable Housing

5 Assistance Act of 2000’’.

6 SEC. 2. FUNDING SHELTER PLUS CARE THROUGH SECTION

7 8 RENTAL ASSISTANCE.

8 Section 463 of Public Law 100–77 (42 U.S.C.

9 11403h) is amended to read as follows:
2

•HR 5604 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 463. FUNDING.

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—For fiscal year 2001 and fiscal

3 years thereafter, assistance under this subtitle shall be

4 funded only by using amounts appropriated for section 8

5 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C.

6 1437f).

7 ‘‘(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—In ad8 dition to any amounts otherwise made available for assist9 ance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act

10 of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f), there is authorized to be ap11 propriated $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 for providing

12 assistance under this subtitle.’’.

13 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SEC14 TION 8 VOUCHER ASSISTANCE.

15 In addition to any amounts otherwise made available

16 for assistance under section 8 of the United States Hous17 ing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f) (including any amounts

18 appropriated for assistance under the shelter plus care

19 program under subtitle F of Public Law 100–77 (42

20 U.S.C. 11403 et seq.) and any amounts appropriated pur21 suant to section 558 of the Quality Housing and Work

22 Responsibility Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–276; 112

23 Stat. 2614)), there is authorized to be appropriated

24 $14,200,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 for incremental

25 voucher assistance under such section 8.
3

•HR 5604 IH

1 SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR COM2 MUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AS3 SISTANCE.

4 The last sentence of section 103 of the Housing and

5 Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5303)

6 is amended to read as follows: ‘‘For purposes of assistance

7 under section 106, there is authorized to be appropriated

8 $5,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.’’.

Æ
_______________________________________ __ _____________ _______________ _____________

_____________ _______________ _____________

___________________ _________________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 5, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
128364 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices IN RE ESTATE OF IDA E. SPRENKLE-HILL

GEORGE H. HILL, Petitioner-Appellee, SC: 128364 v COA: 248783 Barry Probate Ct: 2002-023531-DA LESLIE R. FLINT, Respondent-Appellant, and

DAVID H. TRIPP, Personal Representative, Respondent.

On order of the Court, the order of October 7, 2005 which directed the hearing of oral argument on the application fo r leave to appeal is VACATED and leave to appeal is DENIED because we are no longer persuaded the questi ons presented should be reviewed by this Court.

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.

January 5, 2006

Clerk
**1995-  crop_production_01.11.95crop_production_02.10.95crop_production_03.10.95crop_production_04.11.95crop_production_05.11.95crop_production_06.12.95crop_production_07.12.95crop_production_08.11.95crop_production_09.12.95crop_production_10.11.95crop_production_11.09.95crop_production_12.12.95

**
Request for AmeriCorps VISTA Close of Service Travel Assistance Form

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

service travel. Members must complete and submit this form to VMSUForms@americorps.gov no later 

than two (2) weeks after ending your service term. If possible, this form should be submitted prior to 

ending service.

The allowance for close of service travel is financial assistance intended to help offset the costs 

associated with traveling to your home at the end of your VISTA service. The Close of Service Travel 

Allowance is based on the direct mileage between your physical address immediately prior to relocation 

and your VISTA project site’s address. The monetary amount of your Close of Service allowance will be 

identical to the Relocation Assistance allowance you received when initially relocating to serve with 

AmeriCorps VISTA, which is calculated at $0.40 per mile and paid eight to ten weeks after your 

relocation voucher is approved.

VISTA members are eligible for close of service travel assistance if they:

1. Relocated more than 50 miles to report to their project site;

2. Received a Relocation Allowance; AND

3. Are relocating more than 50 miles from the physical address of the project site at the conclusion

of their service term.

Travel Start Date:

If you are eligible and relocating at the conclusion of your service, please complete, sign thisform and 

return it to VMSUForms@americorps.gov.

By completing and signing this form, you are certifying that you are relocating more than 50 miles at the

conclusion of your service term.

AmeriCorps VISTA will begin processing your close ofservice travel assistance request upon receipt of 

your completed form.

CERTIFICATIONS

By typing your name in the signature block, you are certifying that you are relocating at the conclusion of 

your 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 for service with AmeriCorps VISTA, 

and will be relocating at the end of my service term as well. I understand that AmeriCorps may seek to

recoup relocation assistance funds from me if I do not relocate. 

The anticipated date(s) ofmy travel are: Travel End Date: 

Signature: Date:

1
###### Editorial Note on Subpart 101-6.2 of Part 101-6

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 101-6 appear at 68 FR 51373, Aug. 26, 2003.

#### § 101-6.214 Judicial review.

Action taken pursuant to section 602 of the Act is subject to judicial review as provided in section 603 of the Act.
#### Willie L. LOVELESS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 14529.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Sept. 30, 1958.

Decided Oct. 9, 1958.

Mr. Curtis P. Mitchell, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. John A. Shorter, Jr., Roy M. Ellis, and Gordon J. Myatt, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Nathan J. Paulson, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for ap-pellee.

Before Bazelon, Fahy and Burger, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was tried for second degree murder and convicted of manslaughter. At the close of testimony, appellant requested a charge on manslaughter but the court ruled that he would not give such a charge but would charge on second degree murder, which he did. After the arguments had all been concluded, however, the court advised counsel he had changed his mind and considered the manslaughter charge essential. At that point1 appellant’s counsel protested that “neither of us, in view of what your honor said, argued with respect to man*488slaughter at all.” The appellant was thus precluded from arguing to the jury that even the lesser offense was not supported by the evidence.

Rule 30 in pertinent part provides:

> “The court shall inform counsel of its proposed action upon the requests *prior to their arguments to the jury** * *Fed.R.Crim.P. 30, 18 U.S.C.A. (Emphasis added.)

In the circumstances of this case the least that could have been done to comply with this important rule was to afford counsel an opportunity to re-open and argue the issue of manslaughter. Jackson v. State, 1949, 216 Ark. 341, 225 S.W.2d 522, 15 A.L.R.2d 484; Fox v. Commonwealth, 1924, 202 Ky. 41, 258 S.W. 950; cf. Clancy v. City of Joplin, Mo.Ct.App.1915, 181 S.W. 120 (civil negligence case). The judgment of conviction is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

1

. Previously, when the manslaughter charge was refused, the defense preserved its objection to the court’s ruling.
# Journal officiel C 12A/17 j

| | ISSN 1725-2431 |
| --- | --- |
| Journal officiel
  de l'Union européenne | C 12A |
| | |
| Édition de langue française | Communications et informations | 52e année17 janvier 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2431

Journal officiel

de l'Union européenne

C 12A

Édition de langue française

Communications et informations

52e année17 janvier 2009

---

| Numéro d'information | Sommaire | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Avis |
| | PROCÉDURES ADMINISTRATIVES |
| | Office européen de sélection du personnel (EPSO) |
| 2009/C 012A/01 | Liste de réserve — Concours général EPSO/AD/96/07 — Chef d'unité (AD 9) de langue allemande ou française pour le Bureau d'Information du Parlement européen à Luxembourg | 1 |

Numéro d'information

Sommaire

page

V   Avis

PROCÉDURES ADMINISTRATIVES

Office européen de sélection du personnel (EPSO)

2009/C 012A/01

Liste de réserve — Concours général EPSO/AD/96/07 — Chef d'unité (AD 9) de langue allemande ou française pour le Bureau d'Information du Parlement européen à Luxembourg

1

| FR | |
| --- | --- |

FR

---

V Avis

PROCÉDURES ADMINISTRATIVES

Office européen de sélection du personnel (EPSO)

| 17.1.2009 | FR | Journal officiel de l'Union européenne | CA 12/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2009

FR

Journal officiel de l'Union européenne

CA 12/1

---

LISTE DE RÉSERVE

   (1)

CONCOURS GÉNÉRAL EPSO/AD/96/07

CHEF D'UNITÉ (AD 9)

de langue allemande ou française

pour le Bureau d'Information du Parlement européen à Luxembourg

(2009/C 12 A/01)

Liste par ordre de mérite:

| 1. | SCHLÜTER Britta |
| --- | --- |

1.

SCHLÜTER Britta

| 2. | VAVRIK Stephan |
| --- | --- |

2.

VAVRIK Stephan

La validité de la liste expirera le 31 décembre 2010 et pourra être prorogée.

---

(1)  À la demande expresse d'un lauréat, son nom n'est pas publié.

---
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37164-37165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14996]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United States International Trade 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE: June 12, 2000 at 2:00 p.m.

PLACE:  Room 101, 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS: Open to the public.

AGENDA ITEM TO BE REMOVED: 5. Inv. Nos. 701-TA-253 and 731-TA-132, 252, 
271, 276-277, 296, 409-410, 532-534, and 536-537 (Review) (Certain Pipe 
and

[[Page 37165]]

Tube from Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India, Korea, Mexico, Singapore, 
Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and Venezuela)--briefing and vote. (The 
Commission will transmit its determination to the Secretary of Commerce 
on July 26, 2000).
    In accordance with 19 CFR Sec. 201.35(d)(2), interested parties are 
hereby notified that the Commission has determined that Commission 
business requires removal of the above agenda item from the meeting of 
Monday, June 12, 2000 at 2:00 p.m. No earlier announcement of such 
change was possible.

    Issued: June 9, 2000.

    By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-14996 Filed 6-9-00; 2:10 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-U
EXHIBIT 32

                        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                         AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
              SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-QSB of
Monumental Marketing, Inc. for the period ended, September 30, 2006,
(the "Report") I, Haim Karo, President of the Company, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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 results of
              operations of Monumental Marketing, Inc.



Date:    January 12, 2007              /s/Haim Karo
                             -------------------------------------------
                                         Haim Karo
                                         President
                                   (Principal Executive)
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-07-414-CV

IN RE MICHAEL IRVIN	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator's petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency stay and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency stay are denied.

	Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL A:	CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: November 26, 2007
<PAGE>

32.1     Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
         Officer of Highland Ridge, Inc. pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes
         Oxley Act of 2002


                            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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of HIGHLAND RIDGE (the
"Company") for the year ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
Michael Anthony, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Highland
Ridge, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 results of operations of the Company.

Dated: December 3, 2008

                                      /s/Michael Anthony
                                      ----------------------
                                      Michael Anthony
                                      Chief Executive Officer

                                      /s/ Michael Anthony
                                      ----------------------
                                      Michael Anthony
                                      Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Quarterly Report of Alaska Airlines, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bradley D. Tilden,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

By /s/ Bradley D. Tilden
  --------------------------------
Bradley D. Tilden
Chief Financial Officer
August 6, 2004
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        AMERICAN CONSUMERS, INC.
                                   NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE

                                               EXHIBIT 11


                                                  THIRTEEN WEEKS ENDED       THIRTY-NINE WEEKS ENDED
                                               --------------------------  ----------------------------
                                                February 28,    March 1,    February 28,     March 1,
                                                    2004          2003          2004           2003
                                               --------------  ----------  --------------  ------------
<S>                                            <C>             <C>         <C>             <C>
Net income (loss) for computing income (loss)
  per common share                             $     (41,738)  $   16,204  $     (84,738)  $      6,439
                                               ==============  ==========  ==============  ============


Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding during each period                     814,919      818,290        815,082        818,655
                                               ==============  ==========  ==============  ============


Net income (loss) per common share             $      (0.051)  $    0.020  $      (0.104)  $      0.008
                                               ==============  ==========  ==============  ============
</TABLE>


<PAGE>
#### § 102-118.20 Who is subject to this part?

This part applies to all agencies (including the Department of Defense (DoD)) and TSPs defined in § 102-118.35, and wholly-owned Government corporations as defined in 31 U.S.C. 101, *et seq.* and 31 U.S.C. 9101(3). Your agency is required to incorporate this part into its internal regulations.

[81 FR 65299, Sept. 22, 2016]
(LOGO) CITIBANK

Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.

12855 N. Outer Forty Drive
MS 822
St. Louis, MO 63141

As of and for the year ended  December 31,  1999,  Citicorp  Mortgage,  Inc. (an
indirect wholly owned  subsidiary of Citigroup) and  subsidiaries  (the Company)
has complied, in all material respects, with the minimum servicing standards set
forth  in  the  Mortgage  Bankers   Association  of  America's   Uniform  Single
Attestation for Mortgage  Bankers.  As of and for this same period,  the Company
had in effect  fidelity bond and errors and omissions  policies in the amount of
$430 million.

Very truly yours,

CITICORP MORTGAGE, INC.

By:
Keith B.McDonald, Director of Servicing

By:
David B.Lowman, President/Chief Operating Officer


March 10, 2000
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7107

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. KENNETH LEE FOSTER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 1:09

- cr - 00013

- MR

- WCM

- 8; 1:12

- cv 00315

- MR )

Submitted : December 17, 2019 Decided: December 20, 2019

Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Kenneth Lee Foster, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Lee Foster seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60( d ) motion seeking to set aside the judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Foster has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Foster’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral ar gument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED