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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5556 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5556

   To amend the Social Security Act to reduce the waiting period for 
  benefits under the medicare program from two years to 18 months for 
                     individuals with disabilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 25, 2000

 Mr. Sandlin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on 
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Social Security Act to reduce the waiting period for 
  benefits under the medicare program from two years to 18 months for 
                     individuals with disabilities.

    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 ``Medicare Disability Eligibility 
Waiting Period Reduction Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN WAITING PERIOD FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES.

    (a) Title II of the Social Security Act.--Section 226(b) of the 
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 426(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``24 calendar months'' 
        and inserting ``18 calendar months'';
            (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``24 months'' and 
        inserting ``18 months'';
            (3) in paragraph (2)(C)(ii), by striking ``24 months'' and 
        inserting ``18 months'';
            (4) in the matter following paragraph (2)(C) in the first 
        sentence, by striking ``the twenty-fifth month'' and inserting 
        ``the nineteenth month''; and
            (5) in the second sentence, by striking ``the twenty-fourth 
        month'' and inserting ``the eighteenth month''.
    (b) Title XVIII of the Social Security Act.--(1) Clause (2) of 
section 1811 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395c) is amended by 
striking ``24 months'' and inserting ``18 months''.
    (2) Section 1837(g)(1)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395p(g)(1)(B)) is 
amended by striking ``before the 25th month'' and inserting ``before 
the nineteenth month''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to benefits for months beginning after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
1 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

CASE NO. 22-cv-24013-RNS 

CHENMING ZHOU, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS AND 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED 

ON SCHEDULE “A”, 

Defendants. 

_________________________________________________/ 

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER 

Plaintiff, Chenming Zhou, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby gives notice 

that the Defaulting Defendants1 were served on October 11, 2023 with the Report and 

Recommendations on Renewed Motion for Default Judgment Against Certain Defaulted 

Defendants (ECF No. 138). 

Respectfully submitted on this 23rd day of October, 2023. 

LAW FIRM OF RUBIO & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

8950 SW 74 Ct., Suite 1804 

Miami, Fl 33156 

Telephone: (786) 220-2061 

Facsimile: (786) 220-2062 

Email: hrubio@rubiolegal.com 

Email: frubio@rubiolegal.com 

Email: info@rubiolegal.com 

 

By:/s/ Humberto Rubio 

Humberto Rubio, Jr., Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 36433 

Felipe Rubio, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 123059 

1

 Defaulted Defendants listed in Schedule A of Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 131-

3). 

Case 1:22-cv-24013-RNS Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2023 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 38557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15774]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Ocean Transportation Intermediary License No. 1929-R]


Perez International Forwarders, Inc.; Order of Revocation

    Section 19c of the Shipping Act of 1984 provides that the Federal 
Maritime Commission (``Commission'') may revoke an ocean transportation 
intermediary's (``OTI'') license for failure to maintain a valid bond, 
proof of insurance, or other surety in accordance with subsection 
(b)(1) of said section. The Commission's regulations, in 46 CFR 515.26, 
financial responsibility is maintained on file with the Commission. 
Upon receipt of notice of termination of such financial responsibility 
the Commission shall notify the licensee, that the Commission shall, 
without hearing or other proceeding, revoke the license as of the 
termination date, unless the licensee shall have submitted valid 
replacement proof of financial responsibility before such termination 
date.
    The bond issued in favor of Perez International Forwarders, Inc., 
was cancelled effective April 14, 2000. The Commission notified 
licensee that its OTI ocean freight forwarder license would be revoked 
unless the Commission received valid proof of financial responsibility 
with an effective date on or before April 14, 2000. The licensee has 
failed to furnish valid proof of financial responsibility.
    Therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the 
Commission as set forth in 46 CFR 501.27(g) (1999);
    Notice is Hereby Given, that OTI ocean freight forwarder license 
No. 1929-R issued to Perez International Forwarders, Inc. is hereby 
revoked effective April 14, 2000.
    It is Ordered, that OTI license No. 1929-R be returned to the 
Commission for cancellation.
    It is Further Ordered, that a notice of this action be published in 
the Federal Register and that a copy of this Order be served upon Perez 
International Forwarders, Inc.

Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Consumer Complaints and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 00-15774 Filed 6-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 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

No. 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 JUSTICE 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 proceedings on those motions. Costs of the appeal are 

taxed against the parties that incurred them.

SIGNED April 24, 2013.

_____________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
<PAGE>   1



                                   EXHIBIT 11
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                               ALLEN TELECOM INC.
                             (Amounts in Thousands)


Net income and common shares used in the calculations of earnings per common
share were computed as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                               NINE MONTHS 
                                                           THREE MONTHS ENDED                     ENDED
                                                             SEPTEMBER 30,                     SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                       -------------------------        -------------------------
                                                         1998             1997            1998             1997
                                                         ----             ----            ----             ----
<S>                                                    <C>              <C>             <C>              <C>     
Income:
-------

    Net income (loss) applicable to
         Common stock - Basic and Diluted              $ (2,112)        $  7,930        $ (6,908)        $ 21,690
                                                       ========         ========        ========         ========

Common Shares:
--------------

    Weighted average common shares outstanding-
       Basic                                             27,240           27,070          27,190           26,850

    Assumed exercise of stock options                       100              510             180              430
                                                       --------         --------        --------         --------

    Common shares - Diluted                              27,340           27,580          27,370           27,280
                                                       ========         ========        ========         ========
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 23
----------

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT AND REPORT ON SCHEDULE

To the Board of Directors
Wilmar Industries, Inc.
Moorestown, New Jersey

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-
19563 of Wilmar Industries, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated March 2, 1999
(March 19, 1999 as to Note 11), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Wilmar Industries, Inc. for the year ended December 25, 1998.

Our audits of the financial statements referred to in our aforementioned report
also included the financial statement schedule of Wilmar Industries, Inc.,
listed in Item 14.  This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of
the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on
our audit.  In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 25, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TREX MEDICAL
CORPORATION'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 28, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                          33,966
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,368
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,264
<INVENTORY>                                     33,010
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,108
<PP&E>                                          17,259
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,489
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 200,850
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,274
<BONDS>                                            109
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           286
<OTHER-SE>                                     149,011
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   200,850
<SALES>                                        150,195
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               150,195
<CGS>                                           86,642
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   86,642
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,862
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   273
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,373
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,512
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,168
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,344
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,344
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .38
        


</TABLE>
#### § 102-85.220 Can a customer agency forced to relocate waive the reimbursements?

Yes, a customer agency forced to relocate can waive some or all of the reimbursements from the forcing agency that are prescribed in § 102-85.215. However, a relocated customer agency cannot waive the requirement for the forcing customer agency to reimburse GSA for unpaid tenant improvements. If GSA is the “forcing” agency, it is responsible for the same costs as any other forcing customer agency.
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

41) IV-C-7 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:53 AM Sheet 41 of 232 
. — — — EL2_ 

f%\ \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

^|^ Z * ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

OCT 2 2 1987 AIR AND RADIATION 

Mr. Ralph Hitchcock, Director 

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NRM-10) 

400 7th Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. Hitchcock: 

As requested in your letter of September 28, 1987, I am 

sending you a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis on in-use gasoline volatility 

control. I regret that you did not receive the volatility 

documents which were sent at the same time as the onboard 

documents we provided previously. I apologize for any 

inconvenience caused by not having this material for your 

review. if you have any questions or need any further 

information on this proposal please contact me. 

Furthermore, I noted your concern with the possible safety 

implications of vehicles traveling long distances and/or being 

operated for lengthy periods without refueling. If your 

concerns are about the capacity of an onboard canister 

operating under these conditions, the onboard system operates 

in such a manner that the canister is almost entirely purged 

shortly after the refueling event. As a result, the canister 

will have extra capacity available at most times to handle any 

excess evaporative emissions which may occur. Moreover, if 

your concern involves the effects of high ambient temperature 

and RVP on fuel tank emissions, it is important to note that 

the fuel will be consumed as the vehicle is driven. When the 

vehicle travels long distances (i.e., between regions), it will 

eventually have to be refueled. The fuel used in the later 

refueling event will be at RVP levels compatible to the ambient 

temperatures of this new region. Therefore, no adverse safety 

implications should result. I hope this addresses your safety 

concerns, but please feel free to contact us at any time to 

further discuss these or any other concerns you have regarding 

our proposals. 

Sincerely yours, 

».... • - - - - / '/• • 

Charles L. Gray, Jr. ' 

Director 

Emission control Technology Division 

Enclosures
§ 105-54.306 Amendment of advisory committee charters. ( a ) A charter is amended when GSA decides that the existing charter no longer accurately reflects the objectives or functions of the committee. Changes may be minor, such as revising the name of the committee or modifying the estimated number or frequency of meetings, or they may be major dealing with the basic objectives or composition of the committee. The Administrator retains final authority for amending the charter of an advisory committee. Amending an existing advisory committee charter does not constitute renewal of the committee.
( b ) To make a minor amendment, the Administrator approves the amended charter and has it filed according to § 105-54.203-1.
( c ) To make a major amendment, the Committee Management Officer submits an amended charter and a letter to the Committee Management Secretariat, signed by the HSSO with the concurrence of the General Counsel or designee, requesting the Secretariat's views on the amended language, along with an explanation of the purpose of the changes and why they are necessary. The Secretariat reviews the proposed changes and notifies the Committee Management Officer of its views within 15 calendar days of receiving it, if possible. The Administrator has the charter filed according to § 105-54.203-1.
( d ) Amending an existing charter does not constitute renewal of the committee.
§ 105-55.014 Liquidation of collateral. ( a ) The General Services Administration (GSA) will liquidate security or collateral through the exercise of a power of sale in the security instrument or a non-judicial foreclosure, and apply the proceeds to the applicable debt(s), if the debtor fails to pay the debt(s) within a reasonable time after demand and if such action is in the best interest of the United States. Collection from other sources, including liquidation of security or collateral, is not a prerequisite to requiring payment by a surety, insurer, or guarantor unless such action is expressly required by statute or contract.
( b ) When GSA learns a bankruptcy petition has been filed with respect to a debtor, the Agency will ascertain the impact of the Bankruptcy Code, including, but not limited to, 11 U.S.C. 362, to determine the applicability of the automatic stay and the procedures for obtaining relief from such stay prior to proceeding under paragraph (a) of this section.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

, 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.

January 8, 2019 

# Order

Clerk January 8, 2019

15 8 622

HANAN KHARROUBI,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 158622

v COA: 344711

Wayne CC: 17

- 002660

- CZ

HOSAM NASSEREDDINE,

Defendant/Cross

- Plaintiff,

and

KAMEL KHARROUBI,

Defendant/Cross

- Defendant

- Appellant

. _________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the stipulation signed by counsel for the parties

agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the

application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.
United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Eliezer Taveras, Plaintiff,

v.

Florida Department of 

Transportation and others, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 22-23745 -Civ-Scola

Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations

This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan 

Goodman for all pretrial matters. (ECF No. 34.) Judge Goodman has issued a 

combined report and recommendations and an order, addressing both 

dispositive and non-dispositive matters. (Rep. & Order, ECF No. 84.) As to the 

dispositive motions—(1) Defendants Jared Perdue and Florida Department of 

Transportation’s motion for involuntary dismissal (ECF No. 58); (2) Defendant 

Larry J. Saravia and Alpine Towing, Inc.’s motion for involuntary dismissal 

(ECF No. 59); and (3) pro se Plaintiff Eliezer Taveras’s motion for sanctions 

(ECF No. 67)—Judge Goodman recommends that all three be denied. No party 

has filed objections to the report, and the time to do so has passed.

Despite the lack of objections, the Court has nonetheless made a de novo 

review of Judge Goodman’s recommendations. After careful consideration of his

report, the record, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court agrees with the 

entirety of Judge Goodman’s findings and conclusions: although Taveras’s 

repeated failures to comply with the Court’s orders and rules are unacceptable, 

the drastic sanction of dismissal in this case is unwarranted—although just 

barely; and Taveras has failed to show that FDOT, Perdue, or their counsel 

engaged in any sanctionable or even unethical conduct. The Court therefore

affirms and adopts Judge Goodman’s report and recommendations (ECF No. 

84) in its entirety, thus denying all three motions (ECF No. 58, 59, 67). 

Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on February 2, 2024.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:22-cv-23745-RNS Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2024 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-CV-23980-SCOLA/GOODMAN

LILIAN GARCIA TRUJILLO, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

MERICK GARLAND, Attorney General of

the United States et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________________/

ORDER PERMITTING SUR-REPLY

Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, which requests that the Court 

compel U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate her Form I526, Immigrant Petition by Alien Investor. [ECF No. 1].

Defendants filed a motion to transfer venue, seeking to have this Court transfer 

Plaintiff’s case to the District Court for the District of Columbia. [ECF No. 6]. Plaintiff 

filed a response [ECF No. 9] and Defendants filed an optional reply [ECF No. 10]. United 

States District Court Judge Robert N. Scola referred the motion to the Undersigned “to be 

heard and determined, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 72, and Rule 1(c) of the Local Magistrate Judge Rules.” [ECF No. 8].

Defendants’ initial motion argues that transfer is appropriate based on the factors 

enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Plaintiff’s response addresses those factors and contends 

Case 1:22-cv-23980-RNS Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

that transfer is not warranted. In Defendants’ reply, they argue for the first time that 

transfer is also appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1406. As part of this fresh argument, 

Defendants now explicitly contend that venue is not even proper in this District and thus, 

if the case is not transferred, then it will need to be dismissed.

Because this argument is being raised for the first time in Defendants’ Reply, 

Plaintiff was not given an opportunity to respond. Therefore, Plaintiff shall have until 

February 21, 2023 to file an optional sur-reply addressing Defendants’ new argument.1

Plaintiff’s optional sur-reply shall be no more than eight, double spaced pages (excluding 

signature block and certificate of service).

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Miami, Florida, on February 10, 2023.

Copies furnished to:

The Honorable Robert N. Scola, Jr.

All counsel of record

1 “[C]ourts usually do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply. 

Garcia v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc., No. 16-20230-CIV, 2016 WL 9376014, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 

13, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, No. 16-20230-CIV, 2017 WL 3112818 (S.D. 

Fla. Jan. 31, 2017) (collecting cases). However, the Undersigned is exercising my 

discretion to consider the argument and eliminating any prejudice by permitting a surreply. Nonetheless, in the future, if defense counsel wishes to raise a new argument in a 

reply, then counsel should first seek permission from the Court. 

Case 1:22-cv-23980-RNS Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2023 Page 2 of 2