alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 27, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-40433

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES ALAN RAZSI,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-85-ALL

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

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Alan Razsi (Razsi), a federal inmate, appeals his

sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for assaulting

Elmer Sorrell (Sorrell), another inmate, with a dangerous weapon

with intent to do bodily harm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

113(a)(3). Razsi asserts that the district court erred when it

increased his base offense level by five levels under U.S.S.G.

§ 2A2.2(b)(3)(B) after finding that Sorrell had sustained serious

bodily injury. 
No. 05-40433

-2-

Section 2A2.2(b)(3)(B) of the Sentencing Guidelines requires

a five-level increase to a base offense level if the victim of

the offense sustained serious bodily injury. “‘Serious bodily

injury’ means injury involving extreme physical pain or the

protracted impairment of a function of a bodily member, organ, or

mental faculty; or requiring medical intervention such as

surgery, hospitalization, or physical rehabilitation.” U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.1 cmt. n.1(L) (2004); see U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2 cmt. n.1 (2004).

The record indicates that Sorrell was treated, hospitalized,

and given pain medication for multiple lacerations, depressed

fractures in his frontal sinus cavity, bleeding from his left

ear, swelling of his right cheek, and other scratches and

abrasions. As a result of his injuries and pain, Sorrell

received medical treatment, was hospitalized, was on a liquid

diet, was unable to retrieve his own pain medication, and was

only able to take the pain medication after it was crushed. 

Because of these facts, the district court’s application of the

five-level increase to Razsi’s base offense level pursuant to

U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(b)(3)(B) because Sorrell did sustain serious

bodily injury was not clearly erroneous.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: � Identifying incompatible combinations ofconcrete materials [electronic resource].**
 
pt 1|pt 2
 
SuDoc Number:TD 2.30:06-079; TD 2.30:06-080

Item Number:0982-G-11 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 001062522

 
July 12, 2018
**EXHIBIT11.1**

 

**DUKEREALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP**

**EARNINGSTO FIXED CHARGES CALCULATION**

**(inthousands)**

 
|                                                                              |   | **DECEMBER 31,  2003** |       |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------|------------|
|                                                                              |   |                   |       |
| Net income from continuing  operations, less preferred distributions              |   | $                      | 163,638    |   |
| Preferred distributions                                                           |   | 39,225                 |       |
| Earnings from land and  depreciated property dispositions                         |   | (15,774                | )          |
| Interest expense                                                                  |   | 129,160                |       |
| Earnings before fixed charges                                                     |   | $                      | 316,249    |   |
|                                                                              |   |                   |       |
| Interest expense                                                                  |   | $                      | 129,160    |   |
| Preferred distributions                                                           |   | 39,225                 |       |
| Interest costs capitalized                                                        |   | 6,734                  |       |
| Total fixed charges                                                               |   | $                      | 175,119    |   |
|                                                                              |   |                   |       |
| **Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges  and preferred unit distributions** |   | **1.81**               | ** ** |
|                                                                              |   |                   |       |
| **Ratio of earnings to fixed charges**                                            |   | **2.33**               | ** ** |

 

----
ARNOLD J. KNIGHT

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILE D

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 2364

Opinion filed October 2, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Arnold J. Knight, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief,

Tallahassee , for Respondent

.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

WETHERELL, ROWE, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
§ 101-28.306-2 Use of customer supply centers. ( a ) Orders are received by the CSC via phone, mail, electronic mail, or in person on a walk-in basis for urgent agency requirements. All use of the CSC is based upon the customer access code assigned at the time of establishment of the activity account. The customer access code determines the ship-to point for orders placed with the CSC. The ship-to point cannot be changed, one established, except by the submission of a written request signed by an appropriate agency official.
( b ) All orders placed with the CSC, except emergency pickup orders, described in § 101-28.306-1(c), will be shipped to the activity placing the order via mail or small parcel carrier not later than the end of the next business day.
( c ) Walk-in orders for urgent requirements are accepted and filled immediately provided the individual placing the order has proper identification. Telephone orders placed in the morning may be picked up in the afternoon of the same day provided that the individual picking up the order possesses proper identification and the order ticket number provided by the CSC personnel at the time the order is placed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

WEIZMAN FL PROPERTIES, LLC, 

a Florida limited liability company, 

Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-23362-KMW

v. 

MICHAEL MARANDA, an individual,

Defendant.

 / 

JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT FINAL

JUDGMENT AGAINST MICHAEL MARANDA 

Plaintiff, WEIZMAN FL PROPERTIES, LLC and Defendant MICHAEL MARANDA, 

through their respective counsel, move for the entry of a Consent Final Judgment Against 

Defendant, attached as Exhibit 1.

Dated: July 21, 2023 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Hilda Piloto /s/ Hunter A. Hagood-James

Hilda Piloto Hunter A. Hagood-James, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0154120 Florida Bar No. 1020504 

SAUL EWING LLP HAGOOD & HAGOOD, PLLC

701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1700 501 N Magnolia Avenue 

Miami, Florida 33131 Orlando, Florida 32801 

Telephone: (305) 428-4500 Telephone: 407-414-3846 

Facsimile: (305) 374-4744 HH@HagoodHagood.com 

Hilda.piloto@saul.com 

Case 1:22-cv-23362-KMW Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2023 Page 1 of 1
Case 9:22-cv-81681-WPD Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 1 of 2
Case 9:22-cv-81681-WPD Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2022 Page 2 of 2
§ 101-26.105 Justification to support negotiated procurement by GSA for other agencies. When a requisition submitted by an agency to GSA requires procurement without providing for full and open competition, the agency submitting the requisition will be so notified and required to furnish specific information to assist GSA in preparing the required written justification. The GSA contracting officer will defer procurement action pending receipt of the requested information. If the requisitioning agency has prior knowledge that a requisition will require procurement without providing for full and open competition (e.g., sole source acquisition), sufficient information shall be included with the requisition to allow GSA to justify the procurement. Specifically, the information must include the following: ( a ) The specific needs to be satisfied in terms of identified tasks or work processes;
( b ) The requirements that generate the specific needs;
( c ) The characteristics of the designated item that enable it to satisfy the specific needs, if a specific source(s) is requested;
( d ) The identification of other items evaluated and, for each, a statement of the characteristics (or lack thereof) which preclude their satisfying the specific needs, if a specific source(s) is requested;
( e ) The citation of the applicable law, if any, authorizing other than full and open competition (see FAR 6.302 (48 CFR 6.302); and
( f ) Any required certifications, pursuant to FAR 6.303-2(b) (48 CFR 6.303-2(b)), that supporting data is complete and accurate.
[56 FR 12456, Mar. 26, 1991]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                              43
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   61,708
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    478,103
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               561,647
<PP&E>                                         802,133
<DEPRECIATION>                                 445,620
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 984,986
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          502,773
<BONDS>                                        233,695
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     38,275
<COMMON>                                            28
<OTHER-SE>                                     183,545
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   984,986
<SALES>                                        195,673
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               195,673
<CGS>                                            1,914
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   70,190
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    27
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,609
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                125,510
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            125,510
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   125,510
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 23, 2013

t1216

Order 

Clerk

December 23, 2013

147782

JOSEPH H. NELSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN,

Intervening Plaintiff,

v SC: 147782

COA: 313551

MCAC: 11-000084

ARVCO CONTAINER CORPORATION and

ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE COMPANY

OF AMERICA,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 12, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### § 102-2.140 What elements of plain language appear in the FMR?

The FMR is written in a “plain language” regulatory style. This style is easy to read and uses a question and answer format directed at the reader, active voice, shorter sentences, and, where appropriate, personal pronouns.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
                                                                      ----------



                        AAVID THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT




Name                                                  Site of Incorporation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aavid Thermal Products, Inc.                          New Hampshire
Aavid Laboratories, Inc.                              New Hampshire
Fluent, Inc.                                          New Hampshire
Aavid Thermal Technologies of Texas, Inc.             New Hampshire
Applied Thermal Technologies, Inc.                    New Hampshire
Aavid Engineering, Ltd.                               U.K.
Aavid Engineering, GmbH                               Germany
Fluent Europe, Ltd.                                   U.K.
Aavid Thermal Products of Canada, Inc.                Ontario, Canada
Aavid Engineering (S) Pte. Ltd.                       Singapore
Aavid Taiwan, Inc.                                    Taiwan
Exhibit 10(A)

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO ALLEN TELECOM INC. 1982 STOCK PLAN

At a meeting held on April 28, 2000, the Board of Directors of Allen
Telecom Inc. (the Company) duly adopted a resolution amending,
effective as of December 31, 1996, the sentence immediately prior to the
last sentence of Section 5(g) of the Allen Telecom Inc. 1982 Stock Plan
to read as follows:



| |  | Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, if upon an
optionees termination of employment the optionee becomes a
senior management consultant to the Company and/or its
subsidiaries under a post-employment consulting arrangement,
such option shall continue to vest under its original vesting
schedule, and may be exercised by the optionee, during the
period ending on the earliest of (i) the ninetieth (90th) day
following the date that the optionee permanently ceases to
render consulting services to the Company and/or its
subsidiaries, for any reason other than cessation by reason
of death, under a post-employment consulting arrangement, or
(ii) the date that is one year after the date described in
clause (i) if the optionee ceases to render consulting
services on account of his death (in which case such option
may be exercised by the optionees executor or administrator
or by his distributee to whom the option may have been
transferred by will or by the laws of descent and
distribution, but only to the extent that it was exercisable
on the date of the optionees death).
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executed this 28th day of April, 2000.

|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Laura C. Meagher
Laura C. Meagher
Secretary
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report of Duke Realty Limited Partnership (the “Partnership”)on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Darell E. Zink,Jr., Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Partnership.

 

 
|   | /s/ Darell  E. Zink, Jr.                                                       |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Darell E.  Zink, Jr.                                                           |
|   | Executive  Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer of the

General Partner |
|   | March 25,  2003                                                                |

 

----
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00535-CR

Arlene Laureles

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

148th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 10CR2564-E

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 24, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 0:22-cv-62251-RAR 

HOWARD COHAN, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

LORD SHEBA INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. 

a Florida Profit Corporation d/b/a DUNKIN DONUTS, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT 

 

 Plaintiff, HOWARD COHAN, and Defendant, LORD SHEBA INVESTMENT GROUP, 

INC. d/b/a DUNKIN DONUTS, by and through their respective counsel, hereby advise this Court 

that the parties have settled in principle. The parties request 14 days to finalize settlement and file 

the appropriate paperwork with the Court. 

Respectfully submitted on January 10, 2023. 

By: /s/ Gregpry S. Sconzo 

Gregory S. Sconzo, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 0105553 

Email: greg@sconzolawoffice.com 

Samantha L. Simpson, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 1010423 

Email: samantha@sconzolawoffice.com 

SCONZO LAW OFFICE, P.A. 

3825 PGA Boulevard, Suite 207 

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 

Telephone: (561) 729-0940 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

/s/Alex B.C. Ershock 

Alex B.C. Ershock, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 100220 

E-Mail: ABE@PBL-Law.com 

Daniel R. Levine, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 0057861 

E-Mail: DRL@PBL-Law.com 

PADULA BENNARDO LEVINE, LLP 

3837 NW Boca Raton Blvd. 

Suite 200 

Boca Raton, FL 33431 

Telephone: (561) 544-8900 

Counsel for Defendant 

Case 0:22-cv-62251-RAR Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2023 Page 1 of 1
#### § 102-33.415 When may we declassify a Federal aircraft and remove it from our Federal aircraft inventory?

When an aircraft is lost or destroyed, or is otherwise non-operational and you want to retain it, you may declassify it and remove it from your Federal aircraft inventory. For further details, see §§ 102-33.250 and 102-33.420. See §§ 102-33.265 and 102-33.270 for reporting excess Federal aircraft.
Exhibit 24.13

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Mark A. Kopser and John J. Wellik, and each of them, his true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his behalf, as a director or officer, or both, as
the case may be, of United Surgical Partners International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2002, and to sign any or all amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact, and each of them with or without the others, full power and authority to do and perform each and every
act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of
said attorneys-in-fact or its substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

| |  | /s/JOEL T. ALLISONJoel T. Allison
| |  | ---------------------------------

---

QuickLinks