alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:22-cv-23137-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2022 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:22-cv-23137-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2022 Page 2 of 5
1 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

IN RE: Chapter 7 

CARLOS ALBERTO GARCIA, Case No.: 18-11056-BKC-LMI 

 Debtor. 

________________________________/ 

KENNETH SCHURR, 

 Adv. Case No. 20-01054-LMI 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

CARLOS ALBERTO GARCIA, 

 Defendant. 

________________________________/ 

FINAL JUDGMENT AFTER CLERK’S DEFAULT 

AGAINST DEFENDANT CARLOS ALBERTO GARCIA, 

Laurel M. Isicoff

Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge

___________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on July 30, 2020.

Case 1:22-cv-23137-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2022 Page 3 of 5
2

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on July 29, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. upon 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Judgment After Clerk’s Default against Defendant Carlos Alberto 

Garcia [ECF No. 18] (the “Motion”), filed by Kenneth Schurr (the “Plaintiff”), pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 55, made applicable to this Adversary Proceeding by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7055 and 

Bankruptcy Local Rule 7055-1, following the entry of a Clerk’s Default against Defendant 

Carlos Alberto Garcia (the “Defendant”) [ECF No. 12] in this Adversary Proceeding. The Court 

having reviewed the Motion and the Court file, and having entered a separate Order granting the 

Motion, it is 

ORDERED as follows: 

1. Final Judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant as to 

Count I of the Complaint. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5), the Defendant’s liability for the 

unpaid Attorneys’ Fees Award (as defined in the Complaint) in the amount of $350,503 is nondischargeable. 

2. Final Judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant as to 

Counts I, II, IV, V, and VI of the Complaint. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 727(a)(2)(a), 727(a)(2)(b), 

727(a)(3), 727(a)(4), 727(a)(5) and 727(a)(6), the Debtor is denied a discharge. 

3. The Court reserves jurisdiction to enter any further orders or take any other 

actions that may be necessary in connection with this matter, including but not limited to, the 

issuance of writs of execution, taxation of costs and consideration of any motions for attorney’s 

fees. 

4. The last known address of the Defendant Carlos Alberto Garcia, 400 SW 89 Ct, 

Miami, FL 33174; cgarcia1705@yahoo.com. 

Case 1:22-cv-23137-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2022 Page 4 of 5
3

5. The Plaintiff’s address is 2030 S. Douglas Road, Suite 105, Coral Gables, Florida 

33134. 

Submitted By: 

/s/ 

Kenneth B. Schurr, Esq. 

2030 S. Douglas Road, Suite 105 

Coral Gables, Florida 33134 

(305) 441- 9031 - Office 

E-Mail: kbsservice@schurrlaw.com 

Copies Furnished To:

Attorney Kenneth Schurr is directed to serve copies of this Order on all interested parties and to 

file a Certificate of Service. 

Case 1:22-cv-23137-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2022 Page 5 of 5
#### § 102-40.60 May we reassign hazardous materials?

Yes, when hazardous materials are reassigned within an executive agency, information on the actual or potential hazard must be included in the documentation effecting the reassignment, and the recipient organization must perpetuate in the inventory or control records visibility of the nature of the actual or potential hazard.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable George B. Sheppud 

Comptroller of' Publlt Aooounts 

Auatln, Texan 

Dear SIPS oplxlloa Ilo. o-361 

the oplnlm of 

you v0ul.d be au 

ol%&ilal, vbt?a 

of the uulted s ey, ha8 boea lost, 

x~tbout the axe aa arquind by 

Artiolo 4365. 

of our opiolal lb.oqueotlrn mwt be 

Yours very truly 

.I 

J’
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT NO. 99.3: CAUTIONARY STATEMENT FOR PURPOSES OF THE "SAFE HARBOR"
PROVISIONS OF THE PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995


Written or oral statements made by Alcan or its representatives, including
statements set forth in Alcan's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2001, which describe the Company's or management's objectives, projections,
estimates, expectations or predictions of the future may be "forward-looking
statements" within the meaning of the United States Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which can be identified by the use of
forward-looking terminology such as "believes," "expects," "may," "will,"
"should," "estimates," "anticipates" or the negative thereof or other variations
thereon. The Company cautions that, by their nature, forward-looking statements
involve risk and uncertainty and that the Company's actual actions or results
could differ materially from those expressed or implied in such forward-looking
statements or could affect the extent to which a particular projection is
realized.

Important factors which could cause the Company's actual performance to differ
materially from projections or expectations included in forward-looking
statements include global aluminum supply and demand conditions for aluminum and
other products, changes in the relative values of various currencies, aluminum
ingot prices and changes in other raw materials costs and availability, cyclical
demand and pricing within the principal markets for the Company's products,
changes in government regulations, particularly those affecting environmental,
health or safety compliance, economic developments, relationships with and
financial and operating conditions of customers and suppliers, the effect of
integrating acquired businesses and ability to obtain expected benefits and
other factors within the countries in which the Company operates or sells its
products and other factors relating to the Company's ongoing operations
including, but not limited to, litigation, labour negotiations and fiscal
regimes.

Copies of the Company's filings may be obtained by contacting the Company or the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                       33
§ 102-117.185 Where must I send a copy of the transportation documents? ( a ) You must forward an original copy of all transportation documents to: General Services Administration, Office of Travel, Employee Relocation and Transportation, Attn: Transportation Audits Division, 1800 F Street NW, 3rd Floor, Mail Hub 3400, Washington, DC 20405, or email: ( 1 ) *SDDCRates@gsa.gov* —subject line SDDC OTO Tenders (DOD only).
( 2 ) *TEAL-Libray@gsa.gov* —subject line GSA Rate Quotes, Tenders/Rate Quotes/Tariffs (all agencies except DOD).
( b ) For all property shipments subject to cargo preference laws (see § 102-117.140), a copy of the ocean carrier's bill of lading, showing all freight charges, must be sent to MARAD within 20 working days of the date of loading for shipments originating in the United States, the District of Columbia, its territories or possessions and within 30 working days for shipments originating outside the United States, the District of Columbia, its territories or possessions.
[87 FR 32323, May 31, 2022]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

July 6, 2012

s0703

Order 

July 6, 2012

145227

SC: 145227

In re HILLS, Minors. COA: 304428

Oakland CC Family Division:

2010-777100-NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 10, 2012 

judgment 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.
Editorial Note on Part 67
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 67 appear by USCG-2001-10714, 69 FR 24983, 24984, May 5, 2004.

§ 67.50-15 Fifth Coast Guard District. ( a ) *Description.* See § 3.25-1 of this chapter.
( b ) *Line of demarcation.* There is no line of demarcation prescribed for this District. When required, it will be determined in accordance with § 67.01-20.
[CGFR 58-17, 23 FR 3377, May 20, 1958, as amended by CGFR 61-40, 26 FR 10353, Nov. 3, 1961]
Dow AgroSciences LLC 

Study ID: DRJ05142008 

Page 1 of 2 

SUMMARY

(In accordance with 40 CFR Part 152, this summary is available 

for public release after registration) 

STUDY TITLE

Dow AgroSciences Response to EPA Query Regarding Two Toxicology Reports 

DATA REQUIREMENTS

None 

AUTHOR(S)

D.R. Juberg 

J.L. Mattsson 

STUDY COMPLETED ON

May 14, 2008 

PERFORMING LABORATORY

Dow AgroSciences LLC 

9330 Zionsville Road 

Indianapolis, Indiana 46268-1054 

LABORATORY STUDY ID

DRJ05142008 
Dow AgroSciences LLC 

Study ID: DRJ05142008 

Page 2 of 2 

Dow AgroSciences Response to EPA Query Regarding Two Toxicology Reports 

SUMMARY

The Health Effects Division (HED) of EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs is currently 

reviewing two previously submitted toxicology reports resulting from a study conducted with the 

insecticide chlorpyrifos, including Kisicki et al., 1999 (MRID 44811002) and Brzak, 2000 

(MRID 45144101). Based on a query received from HED, Dow AgroSciences is providing 

additional details regarding conduct and results of the study. 
Pgs. 3-20 Codes as “B” – document may be requested under the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA), but access is restricted to entities not engaged in the 

production, sale or distribution of pesticides outside the United States.
Editorial Note on Subpart 101-6.21 of Part 101-6
Editorial Note: For additional information, see related documents published at 47 FR 57369, Dec. 23, 1982, 48 FR 17101, Apr. 21, 1983, and 48 FR 29096, June 24, 1983.

§ 101-6.2111 What are the Administrator's obligations in interstate situations? ( a ) The Administrator is responsible for: ( 1 ) Identifying proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development that have an impact on interstate areas;
( 2 ) Notifying appropriate officials and entities in States which have adopted a process and which have selected a GSA program or activity;
( 3 ) Making efforts to identify and notify the affected State, areawide, regional, and local officials and entities in those States that have not adopted a process under the Order or have not selected a GSA program or activity; and
( 4 ) Responding pursuant to § 101-6.2110 of this part if the Administrator receives a recommendation from a designated areawide agency transmitted by a single point of contact, in cases in which the review, coordination, and communication with GSA have been delegated.
( b ) The Administrator uses the procedures in § 101-6.2110 if a State process provides a State process recommendation to GSA through a single point of contact.
EXHIBIT 23



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT



To the Stockholders and Board of Directors

Vie Financial Group, Inc.



We hereby consent to
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos. 333-95717 and 333-95735) on Forms S-8 of and the Registration Statement (No. 333-100194) on Form S-3 of our report dated May 30, 2003, except for the ninth paragraph of note 7, as
to which the date is June 18, 2003, on the consolidated balance sheets of Vie Financial Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries (formerly The Ashton Technology Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries) as of March 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements
of operations, stockholders (deficiency) equity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended March 31, 2003, which appears in the Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31,
2003.



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP               
|                                              
|GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP New York, New York
|                                              
|June 26, 2003
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

N o. 04

- 12

- 00062

- CV

IN THE ESTATE OF Manuel ARIZOLA , Deceased

From the County Court at Law No

. 1, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010

- PB4

- 000054 Honorable Alvino (Ben) Morales, Judge Presiding

and

N o. 04

- 12

- 00063

- CV

IN THE ESTATE OF Romen ARIZOLA , Deceased

From the County Court at Law No

. 2, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010

- PB4

- 000096 Honorable Alvino (Ben) Morales, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUST ICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the orders of the trial court appointing the administrators, denying the motions to remove the administrators, denying the motions to disqualify the administrators’ attorney, and denying the motions to set aside an employment contract are AFFIRMED. The trial court’s orders denying the motions to compel discovery and granting the motions to ratify the settlement are REVERSED, and the cause is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceed ings on those motions. Costs of the appeal are taxed against the parties that incurred them.

SIGNED April 24, 2013.

_____________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-23753-MOORE/LOUIS

EDWIN GARRISON, et al., on behalf of 

themselves and all other similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al.,

Defendants.

/

CERTIFICATION OF SUSAN E. ENGEL

Susan E. Engel, Esquire, pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing the Admission, 

Practice, Peer Review, and Discipline of Attorneys, hereby certifies that: (1) I have studied the 

Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida; (2) I am a 

member in good standing of the Bar of the District of Columbia since 2003 and New York since 

2003; and (3) I have not filed three or more motions for pro hac vice admission in this District 

within the last 365 days.

/s/ Susan E. Engel

Susan E. Engel

Case 1:22-cv-23983-KMM Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2023 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 of Corautus Genetics Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard E. Otto, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(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.



/s/ Richard E. OttoRichard E. OttoPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 30, 2007
###### 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.

#### § 101-6.215 Effect on other regulations; forms and instructions.
602 P.2d 539

#### Alfonso M. HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Respondent.

No. 13037.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Oct. 25, 1979.

Alfonso M. Hernandez, pro se.

David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, P. Mark Thompson, Deputy Attys. Gen., Boise, for respondent.

Before DONALDSON, C. J., SHEPARD and McFADDEN, JJ., and DUNLAP and ROWETT, JJ. Pro Tem.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, presently incarcerated at the Idaho State Correctional Institution on three convictions under the controlled substances act, petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus on June 7, 1978, (case no. 1317). The court denied this petition, sua sponte, for the reason that it raised the same issues of law and fact as a previous habeas corpus petition (case no. 1141), which had been dismissed after adjudication on the merits and no appeal had been taken. Appellant claims this was error.

It is well settled that a petitioner in habeas corpus is not entitled to subsequent writs unless he raises some new issue of law or fact which had not been considered originally. *Coffelt v. State,*92 Idaho 235, 237, 440 P.2d 355, 357 (1968).

The district court’s record in case number 1141 was not certified on appeal to this Court and consequently we have no basis on which to determine whether or not the court erred in holding that no new issue of law or fact was raised by the petition in case number 1317. We will not presume error from a silent record. The burden of establishing error was on appellant. *State v. Wolfe,*99 Idaho 382, 390, 582 P.2d 728, 736 (1978). Appellant has failed to meet this burden.

The order denying and dismissing the petition is affirmed.
#### § 101-42.000 Cross-reference to the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) (41 CFR chapter 102, parts 102-1 through 102-220).

For information on the disposition of personal property with special handling requirements previously contained in this part, see FMR part 102-40 (41 CFR part 102-40), Disposition of Personal Property With Special Handling Requirements.

[80 FR 7353, Feb. 10, 2015]
----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: April 12, 2011 |   | /s/ Sterling M. Redfern |   |
|----------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|                 |   | Sterling M. Redfern          |   |
|                 |   | President                    |   |
|                 |   |                         |   |
Exhibit 32
                        American Airlines, Inc.
                             Certification
       Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
   (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
                          United States Code)


Pursuant   to  section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act   of   2002
(subsections  (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63  of  title  18,
United  States  Code), each of the undersigned officers  of  American
Airlines,  Inc.,  a Delaware corporation (the Company),  does  hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended  March  31,
2007  (the  Form  10-Q)  of  the  Company  fully  complies  with  the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of  1934  and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in  all  material respects, the financial condition  and  results  of
operations of the Company.

Date:  April 20, 2007              /s/ Gerard J. Arpey
                                   Gerard J. Arpey
                                   Chairman, President and Chief
                                   Executive Officer

Date:  April 20, 2007              /s/ Thomas W. Horton
                                   Thomas W. Horton
                                   Executive Vice President and Chief
                                   Financial Officer



The  foregoing  certification is being furnished solely  pursuant  to
section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections  (a)  and
(b)  of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and
is  not  being  filed  as  part of the Form 10-Q  or  as  a  separate
disclosure document.
REINER & REINER, P A

ONE DATRAN CENTER  9100 SOUTH DADELAND BLVD  SUITE 901  MIAMI  FLORIDA  33156  TEL 305 670-8282  FAX 305 670-8989

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-cv-81729-AMC

TULLIA HEISSENBERG, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

CELL NATION OF 3006 BROADWAY 

CORP., AKRAM INVESTMENTS, LLC, 

INSTA MOBILITY, INC., MELBER, LLC, 

LAXCA DF, INC., and WIRELESS PCS 

METRO STATIONS, INC. 

Defendants.

___________________________________/

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned hereby appears as counsel of record for 

Defendant, LAXCA DF, INC., in the above-styled cause. 

Respectfully submitted,

__________________________________

DAVID P. REINER, II; FBN 416400

REINER & REINER, P.A.

Local Counsel for Defendant, LAXCA DF, INC.

9100 So. Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 901

Miami, Florida 33156-7815

Tel: (305) 670-8282; Fax: (305) 670-8989

dpr@reinerslaw.com; eservice@reinerslaw.com

Case 9:22-cv-81729-AMC Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

REINER & REINER, P A

ONE DATRAN CENTER  9100 SOUTH DADELAND BLVD  SUITE 901  MIAMI  FLORIDA  33156  TEL 305 670-8282  FAX 305 670-8989

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 9, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing 

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

is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties either via transmission of Notices 

of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel 

or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.

__________________________________

DAVID P. REINER, II; FBN 416400

Case 9:22-cv-81729-AMC Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2023 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 587 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 587

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the tax on 
                     vaccines to 25 cents per dose.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1999

 Mr. English introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the tax on 
                     vaccines to 25 cents per dose.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Vaccinate America's Children Now 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN TAX ON VACCINES.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 4131(b) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to amount of tax) is amended by striking 
``75 cents'' and inserting ``25 cents''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Limitation on Certain Credits or Refunds.--For purposes of 
applying section 4132(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with 
respect to any claim for credit or refund filed before January 1, 2001, 
the amount of tax taken into account shall not exceed the tax computed 
under the rate in effect on the day after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
(b)(6)