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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION 

Case No.: 10-CV-80231-RYSKAMP/WHITE 

JOHN EDWARD GORDON, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA, 

 Respondent. 

 / 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND CLOSING CASE

 THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the report [DE15] of United States Magistrate Judge 

Patrick A. White entered on November 2, 2010. Petitioner John Edward Gordon filed his objections [DE 

16] on November 30, 2010. This matter is ripe for adjudication. 

 Pending before Judge White was Mr. Gordon’s motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

[DE 1] entered on February 11, 2010 and Mr. Gordon’s motion to stay [DE 14] entered on October 19, 

2010. In his report, Judge White recommends that the motion to vacate be dismissed as time-barred, and 

alternatively, be denied on the merits. Judge White also recommends that the Court deny Mr. Gordon’s 

motion to stay. 

 The Court has conducted a de novo review of the report, objections, applicable law, and 

pertinent portions of the record. The Court finds the report to be well-reasoned and correct and 

the objections to be meritless. Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that 

Case 1:00-cr-01017-KLR Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2011 Page 1 of 2
2

(1) The report of United States Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White [DE 15] be, 

and the same hereby is RATIFIED, AFFIRMED and APPROVED in its 

entirety;

(2) Petitioner John Edward Gordon’s motion to stay [DE 14] is DENIED;

(3) Petitioner John Edward Gordon’s motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [DE 

1] is DISMISSED as time-barred and, alternatively, DENIED on the merits; 

(4) The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE; and 

(5) Any pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this 27 day of December, 

2010. 

 /s/ Kenneth L. Ryskamp 

 KENNETH L. RYSKAMP

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:00-cr-01017-KLR Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2011 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                 Exhibit 99.4

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

      I, Gary B. Horton, Assistant Treasurer of U-Haul International, Inc.,
certify that:

1.    the Quarterly Report of U-Haul International, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the
      quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), which this
      statement accompanies, 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 U-Haul
      International, Inc.

                                            /s/ Gary Horton
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Gary B. Horton
                                            Assistant Treasurer
                                            November 18, 2002
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5491

To suspend until June 30, 2003, the duty on certain R-core transformers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 18, 2000

Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mr. SPENCE, and Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways

and Means

A BILL

To suspend until June 30, 2003, the duty on certain Rcore transformers.

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

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON CERTAIN R-CORE

4 TRANSFORMERS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

8 new heading:
2

•HR 5491 IH

‘‘ 9902.85.04 120 volt/60Hz

electrical transformers (the

foregoing and

parts thereof

provided for in

subheadings

8504.31.40 and

8504.90.95),

with dimensions

not exceeding

85mm by 72mm

by 45.7mm but

at least 76mm by

50mm by 25mm

and each containing a layered

and uncut round

core with two

balanced bobbins,

the foregoing

rated at less than

40 VA but greater than 33.2 VA

with a rating

number of R25. Free No change No change On or before 6/

30/2003 ’’.

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
§ 102-76.120 What recordkeeping responsibilities do Federal agencies have? ( a ) The head of each Federal agency must ensure that documentation is maintained on each contract, grant or loan for the design, construction, or alteration of a pedestrian facility in a public right-of-way subject to the standard in § 102-76.105(a) containing one of the following statements: ( 1 ) The standard has been or will be incorporated in the design, the construction, or the alteration.
( 2 ) The grant or loan has been or will be made subject to a requirement that the standard will be incorporated in the design, the construction, or the alteration.
( 3 ) The standard has been waived or modified by the Administrator of General Services, and a copy of the waiver or modification is included with the statement.
( b ) If a determination is made that a pedestrian facility in a public right-of-way is not subject to the standard in § 102-76.105(a) because the Architectural Barriers Act does not apply to the facility, the head of the Federal agency must ensure that documentation is maintained to justify the determination.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 3, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ Nos. 3D19-751; 3D19-750; 3D19-744; 3D19-741 Lower Tribunal Nos. 16-551-K; 16-494-K; 16-550-K; 16-549-K

________________ 

### Alfred F. Rehm, et al., Appellants, vs. 

### Pritam Singh and Ann E. Johnston , et al.,

Appellees. Appeals from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Luis M. Garcia, Judge. Shannin Law Firm, P.A., Nicholas A. Shannin and Carol B. Shannin (Orlando), for appellants. Smith Hawks, PL, Barton W. Smith and Christopher B. Deem, for appellees. Before LOGUE, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
#### § 102-75.275 Who determines whether the proposed disposal would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with antitrust laws?

The Attorney General determines whether the proposed disposal would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with antitrust laws.
Exhibit E

Case 1:22-cv-23983-KMM Document 20-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2023 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:22-cv-23983-KMM Document 20-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2023 Page 2 of 2
#### § 102-73.115 Must Federal agencies offer a price preference to space in historic properties when acquiring leased space?

Yes, Federal agencies must give a price preference to space in historic properties when acquiring leased space using either the lowest price technically acceptable or the best value tradeoff source selection processes.
§ 102-36.450 Do we report excess shelf-life items? ( a ) When there are quantities on hand, that would not be utilized by the expiration date and cannot be returned to the vendor for credit, you must report such expected overage as excess for possible transfer and disposal to ensure maximum use prior to deterioration.
( b ) You need not report expired shelf-life items. You may dispose of property with expired shelf-life by abandonment/destruction in accordance with § 102-36.305 and in compliance with Federal, State, and local waste disposal and air and water pollution control standards.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           228,802
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                           22,809
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                             22,892
<EQUITIES>                                       4,045
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 255,656
<CASH>                                          26,307
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             180,698
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                             446
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 828,442
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                458,239
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            102,562
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 16,303
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           363
<OTHER-SE>                                     157,085
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   828,442
<PREMIUMS>                                     173,557
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             12,194
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  31,838
<BENEFITS>                                     114,093
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     33,716
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            78,476
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,600
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,202
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,398
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,398
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 261,700
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            123,986
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                3,023
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                              56,088
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                55,875
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                458,239
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
§ 102-81.15 What are the governing authorities for this part? The governing authorities are as follows: ( a ) 40 U.S.C. 121(c) and 581.
( b ) E.O. 12977.
( c ) E.O. 13286, sec. 23.
( d ) 6 U.S.C. 232.
( e ) Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12.
( f ) REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-13).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO.: 22-81878-CV-MIDDLEBROOKS 

DANIEL LUGO, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

GIMME SHELTER-14(D), LLC, 

Defendant. 

________________ / 

ORDER CLOSING CASE 

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Parties' Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice, 

filed jointly on January 18, 2023. (DE 8). The Court congratulates the Parties on their amicable 

resolution of this matter and notes that pursuant to Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 

1272 (11th Cir. 2012), the Parties' Stipulation is self-executing and no Order of the Court is 

required to dismiss this action. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 

1. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

2. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE TIDS CASE. 

3. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 

4. Each of the parties shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs except as otherwise 

agreed. 

SIGNED in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Florida, this~ da 

United States District Judge 

Case 9:22-cv-81878-DMM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2023 Page 1 of 1
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Adam M. Moskowitz

Joseph M. Kaye

THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC

2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

Telephone: (305) 740-1423

Service@moskowitz-law.com

David Boies

(Pro Hac Vice Application Forthcoming)

Stephen Neal Zack

Hon. Ursula Ungaro (Ret.)

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP

333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504

100 SE 2nd St., Suite 2800, Miami, FL 33131

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 11-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 11-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2022 Page 2 of 2
#### § 102-75.1220 How do landholding agencies find out if excess Federal real property is available?

If agencies report excess real and related personal property to GSA, GSA conducts a “Federal screening” for the property. Federal screening consists of developing a “Notice of Availability” and circulating the “Notice” among all Federal landholding agencies for a maximum of 30 days.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in accordance with Public Law 92-463, gives notice that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Structural Safety of Department of Veterans Affairs Facilities (Committee) will be held on:

Thursday, June 22, 2000: 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Friday, June 23, 2000: 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.

The location of the meeting will be 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Room 460 on June 22, 2000, and Room 442 on June 23, 2000.

The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary on matters of structural safety in the construction and remodeling of VA facilities and to recommend standards for use by VA in the construction and alteration of facilities as prescribed under Section 8105 of Title 38, United States Code.

                    On June 22, the Committee will review the developments in the field of                           ( print page 38886)                        structural design, as they relate to seismic safety of buildings, and fire safety issues. On June 23, the Committee will vote on structural and fire safety issues for inclusion in VA's standards.                

Both meetings will be open to the public. It will be necessary for those wishing to attend to contact Krishna K. Banga, Senior Structural Engineer, Facilities Quality Service, Office of Facilities Management, Department of Veterans Affairs Central Office (phone 202-565-9370) prior to the meeting.

Dated: June 12, 2000.

By Direction of the Secretary.

Marvin R. Eason,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-15802  Filed 6-21-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
-79.5 -79.0 -78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5

 38.5

 39.0

 39.5

 40.0

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

05/26

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 May 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6066** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. LEWIS CARNELL JACKSON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:07

- cr - 00110

- FL

- 1 ; 5:12

- cv - 00205

- FL )

Submitted : July 20, 2015 Decided: July 22, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
William Lee Davis, III , Lumberton , North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May

- Parker , Ethan A. Ontjes , Assistant United States Attorneys, Seth Morgan Wood , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTO RNEY , Raleigh , North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Lewis Carnell Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s December 2014 order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not communicating a plea agreement to him prior to trial
. Th is order is not appealable unless a circ uit 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, 48 4 (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 c laim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently review ed the record and conclude that Jackson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### § 102-76.100 What definition applies to this part?

*Public right-of-way* means public land acquired for or dedicated to transportation purposes, or other land where there is a legally established right for use by the public for transportation purposes.
December 15, 2015

VIA FDMS

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140

Attn: FAA Dockets

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Airware – Petition to Amend Exemption No. 13780 (Docket No. FAA-2015-3615)

Dear Sir or Madam:

On November 24, 2015, the FAA granted Unmanned Innovation, Inc. d/b/a Airware

(“Airware”) an exemption pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of

2012 authorizing Airware to operate DJI S1000 and Allied Drones AT28 unmanned aircraft

systems (“UAS”) to conduct aerial data collection, market surveys and demonstrations

(“Exemption No. 13780”).1Pursuant to Operating Condition and Limitation No. 1 indicated

therein, Airware petitions the FAA to amend its Section 333 exemption authority to enable

Airware to operate the following additional UAS under the same operating conditions and

limitations as specified in Exemption No. 13780:

 Yuneec Tornado H920 (multi-rotor, 11 lbs.)

 Altus Delta X4 (multi-rotor, 13 lbs.), Delta X8 (multi-rotor, 21 lbs.) and Delta LRX

(multi-rotor, 25.5 lbs.)

 Altavian Nova F6500 (fixed-wing, 15 lbs.)

 Swift Radioplanes Lynx (fixed-wing, 8 lbs.)

These four UAS meet all of the relevant criteria described in Exemption No. 13780, and

the FAA has already approved Altus, Altavian and Swift Radioplanes UAS for operation under

Section 333.

2

 

Airware’s operations with the above-referenced UAS will comply with all conditions and

limitations specified in Exemption No. 13780, and Airware will update and maintain the

technical manuals for these UAS as necessary. The same public interest and safety factors that

supported the FAA’s issuance of Exemption No. 13780 exist here. Moreover, granting this

 

1

In the Matter of the Petition of Unmanned Innovation, Inc. d/b/a Airware, Grant of Exemption 

No. 13780 (Nov. 24, 2015), Docket No. FAA-2015-3615. 

2

See In the Matter of the Petition of Measure, Grant of Exemption No. 12646 (Aug. 28, 2015), 

Docket FAA-2015-1602, Attachment 1 (listing all UAS authorized under Section 333 as of that date). In addition, 

several Section 333 petitioners have requested authority to operate the Yuneec Tornado H920. See, e.g., In the 

Matter of the Petition of Aerial Optics, Petition for Amendment (Jul. 23, 2015), Docket No. FAA-2015-0170; In the 

Matter of the Petition of VSI Aerial, LLC, Petition for Exemption (Aug. 12, 2015), Docket No. FAA-2015-5551. 
amendment request would be consistent with the amendment relief the FAA has provided to

over 200 other UAS operators already operating under Section 333. 

Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not

hesitate to contact Jesse Kallman, Airware’s Director of Business Development & Regulatory

Affairs, at jkallman@airware.com or (415) 992-3901. 

Respectfully submitted,

Marc L. Warren

Counsel for 

Unmanned Innovation, Inc. d/b/a Airware