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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 608

To require the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to conduct

an audit of purchases of military clothing and related items during

fiscal year 1998 by certain military installations of the Army, Navy,

Air Force, and Marine Corps.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1999

Mr. TRAFICANT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To require the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to conduct an audit of purchases of military clothing and related items during fiscal year 1998 by certain

military installations of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and

Marine Corps.

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

3 SECTION 1. AUDIT OF PROCUREMENT OF MILITARY

4 CLOTHING AND CLOTHING-RELATED ITEMS

5 BY CERTAIN MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.

6 (a) AUDIT REQUIREMENT.—The Inspector General

7 of the Department of Defense shall perform an audit of
2

•HR 608 IH

1 purchases of military clothing and clothing-related items

2 in excess of the micro-purchase threshold during fiscal

3 year 1998 by certain military installations to determine

4 the extent to which such installations procured military

5 clothing and clothing-related items in violation of the Buy

6 American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.) and section 9005

7 of Public Law 102–396 (10 U.S.C. 2241 note) during that

8 fiscal year.

9 (b) INSTALLATIONS TO BE AUDITED.—The audit

10 under subsection (a)—

11 (1) shall include an audit of the procurement of

12 military clothing and clothing-related items by four

13 military installations of each of the Army, Navy, Air

14 Force, and Marine Corps; and

15 (2) shall be limited to military installations in

16 the United States or the possessions or Territories

17 of the United States.

18 (c) DEFINITION.—As used in subsection (a), the term

19 ‘‘micro-purchase threshold’’ has the meaning provided by

20 32(f) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41

21 U.S.C. 428(f)).

22 (d) REPORT.—Not later than September 30, 2000,

23 the Inspector General of the Department of Defense shall
3

•HR 608 IH

1 submit to Congress a report on the results of the audit

2 performed under subsection (a).

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                              877954
<SECURITIES>                                        203683
<RECEIVABLES>                                        23025
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   1106658
<PP&E>                                              707242
<DEPRECIATION>                                      119957
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     1885072
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                45437
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             12610
<OTHER-SE>                                          707761
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       1885072
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     41716
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        32610
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      21451
<INCOME-TAX>                                          3141
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  18310
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         18310
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.01
        


</TABLE>
#### § 102-74.195 What ventilation policy must Federal agencies follow?

During working hours in periods of heating and cooling, Federal agencies must provide ventilation in accordance with ASHRAE Standard 62, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, where physically practical. Where not physically practical, Federal agencies must provide the maximum allowable amount of ventilation during periods of heating and cooling and pursue opportunities to increase ventilation up to current standards. ASHRAE Standard 62 is available from ASHRAE Publications Sales, 1791 Tullie Circle NE, Atlanta, GA 30329-2305.
Case 2:22-cr-14061-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 1 of 5
September 7, 2022

Case 2:22-cr-14061-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:22-cr-14061-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:22-cr-14061-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 4 of 5
7th

Case 2:22-cr-14061-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2022 Page 5 of 5
Motion Granted; Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 3, 

2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-20-00192-CV

ELAINE T. MARSHALL, INDIVIDUALLY, ELAINE T. MARSHALL AS 

INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF E. PIERCE 

MARSHALL, DECEASED, ET AL, Appellant

V.

PRESTON MARSHALL, Appellee

On Appeal from the Probate Court No 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 365,053-403

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 5, 2020, appellee filed a motion to dismiss contending that the 

orders being appealed are interlocutory orders not subject to appeal. In response, 

appellant argues she is authorized to appeal pursuant to section 51.014(a)(4) of the 

Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 51.014 (a)(4)

(authorizing the appeal of an order granting or refusing to grant a temporary 
2

injunction). We agree with appellant and dismiss this appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. 

The orders being appealed relate to the probate court’s approval of 

appellee’s interpleader action. Appellant argues that because the orders deny her 

request to have appellee deposit funds into the registry of the court, they are 

injunctive in nature. A party is entitled to interpleader relief if three elements are 

met: (1) it is either subject to, or has reasonable grounds to anticipate, rival claims 

to the same funds; (2) it has not unreasonable delayed filing its action for 

interpleader; and (3) it has unconditionally tendered the funds into the registry of 

the court. Heggy v. Am. Trading Employee Ret. Account Plan, 123 S.W.3d 770, 

775 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). By its nature, 

interpleader relief requires a party to tender funds into the deposit of a court, even 

if such tender is an unconditional offer and dedication of readiness to do so in the 

party’s pleadings. See id. (stating, “only an unconditional tender, not a deposit, is 

required”). Consequently, if we were to accept appellant’s argument, all orders 

granting or denying interpleader relief would be in the nature of injunctive relief

and subject to interlocutory appeal. We decline to expand our appellate jurisdiction 

to orders granting or denying interpleader relief. 

Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion to dismiss and order this appeal 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2006, (the Report) of Allied Capital Corporation (the Registrant),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof; I, William L.
Walton, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. /s/ William L. WaltonName:
    William L. WaltonDate: August 9, 2006
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 22-cv-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES

OCTAVIO COLLADO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC D/B/A 

KIKI ON THE RIVER AND ROMAN 

JONES,

Defendants.

______________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF FILING CONSENT TO JOIN 

(Konstantinos Kaliptsoglou) 

 

Plaintiff, Octavio Collado, notices the Court and all parties of the filing of the Consent to 

Join in these proceedings by Konstantinos Kaliptsoglou.

Dated this 22nd day of Febraury 2023. 

s/Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 174742

brian@fairlawattorney.com

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Avenue

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33146

Tel: 305.230.4884

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 84 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/22/2023 Page 1 of 1
#### § 101-30.702 Determining item reduction potential.

Item reduction studies are required where there are large numbers of generally similar items which are subject to grouping and examination by item name, item name modifiers, or other characteristics such as sizes, grades, lengths, and materials. Before conducting a full scale item reduction study, the assignee activity shall determine whether sufficient item reduction potential appears to exist. Item reduction studies shall be undertaken only when the expected benefits outweigh the costs of performing the study.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

West Palm Beach Division

BRITTANY ROBERSON, REBECCA 

FREEMAN, BIANCA VIÑAS, TIFFANY 

KING, and TRESHA THOMPSON, 

individually and on behalf of others similarly 

situated, 

Plaintiff(s), 

v. 

HCI COLLEGE LLC (DBA HEALTH 

CAREER INSTITUTE LLC), FLORIAN 

EDUCATION INVESTORS LLC, and 

STEVEN W. HART,

Defendant(s). 

 Civil Action No. 9:22-CIV-81883-RAR

JOINT MOTION TO POSTONE MEDIATION

As required by the Court’s order of February 6, 2023, ECF No. 35, the Parties agreed to, 

and this Court ordered, mediation for June 15, 2023, ECF Nos. 42, 43. On May 10, 2023, this 

Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the deadlines for class discovery and Plaintiffs’ motion 

for class certification by forty-five 45 days. The deadline for completing class certification 

discovery is now July 3, 2023, and the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class 

certification is now July 20, 2023. Because of additional delays and complications with discovery, 

the Parties anticipate seeking a further extension of deadlines in the Court’s Scheduling Order. As 

a result, the Parties agree that mediation on June 15, 2023, would be premature. The Parties 

therefore jointly move this Court to postpone their scheduled mediation. The Parties will submit a 

renewed proposed order setting mediation after Plaintiffs have filed their motion for class 

certification.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2023 Page 1 of 2
Dated: June 15, 2023 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Nicole Mayer

NICOLE MAYER

Florida Bar No. 012035

Nicole@MayerLawFlorida.com

171 Dommerich Drive.

Maitland, Florida 32751

(352) 494-3657

REBECCA EISENBREY

(pro hac vice)

reisenbrey@ppsl.org

Victoria Roytenberg

(pro hac vice)

vryotenberg@ppsl.org

Project on Predatory Student Lending

769 Centre Street, Suite 166

Jamaica Plain, MA 02130

(617) 322-2808

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

/s/ Michael J. Carney

MICHAEL J. CARNEY

Florida Bar No. 44326

MJC-KD@kubickidraper.com

BARBARA FOX

Florida Bar No. 155608

BF-KD@kubickidraper.com

KUBICKI DRAPER

110 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1400

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301

(954) 713-2323

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2023 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 168-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2023 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 22-cv-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES

OCTAVIO COLLADO,

Plaintiff,

COLLECTIVE ACTION

v.

450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC,

D/B/A KIKI ON THE RIVER,

RJ RIVER, LLC AND ROMAN JONES,

Defendants.

/

CONSENT TO JOIN PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. §216(b)

1. My name is Nicoly Miyuki Mercado .

2. I consent, agree, and opt to become a Plaintiff in this lawsuit brought under the 

FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq., against my current/former employer, 450 North River Drive, LLC, 

d/b/a Kiki on the River, and alleged employers RJ River, LLC, and Roman Jones (collectively 

“Defendants”).

3. I wish to assert a claim for alleged unpaid/underpaid tips against Kiki on the River 

and the other Defendants for the tips I allege I’m owed.

4. I agree to be bound by any adjudication of this action by the Court, whether it is 

favorable or unfavorable. I further agree to be bound by any collective action settlement herein 

that is recommended by FairLaw Firm, approved by the Class Representative, and approved by 

the Court as fair and reasonable.

5. I designate the FairLaw Firm to represent me in this case.

Dated Sep 15, 2023 , 2023. Signed:NicolyMiyuki Mercado (Sep 15, 2023 12:27 EDT)

Printed Name: Nicoly Miyuki Mercado _

Your Address, Email, and Telephone Are Needed, But Will Not Filed With The Court

Address: 601 NE 23 rd street, #1002 Miami FL Tel No.: 305 587 8448

Email: Mercado.87@yahoo.com

MAIL, EMAIL, OR FAX YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO:

FairLaw Firm

135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, FL 33156 / brian@fairlawattorney.com

TEL 305.230.4884 TEXT 786.386.0885 FAX 305.230.4844 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 209-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2023 Page 1 of 1
(June 29, 1995)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mike Williams, Also Known as Andrew Chisolm, Also Known as Thomas Chisolm, Appellant.

[629 NYS2d 230]

Upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent Vitale, J.), rendered February 21, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent felony offender, to a term of 8 years to life, and judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Collins, J.), rendered February 27, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the third degree, and, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted escape in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 10 years to life, 31/2 to 7 years and l1/2 to 3 years, respectively, to run consecutively to the sentence imposed by Vitale, J., unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that a reasonable person could not have thought that the portion of the umbrella displayed dur*212ing the robbery was the barrel of a gun is without merit. The display element under Penal Law § 160.10 (2) (b) is satisfied when it is shown that the defendant consciously displayed something that could reasonably be perceived as a firearm with the intent of forcibly taking property, and when it appeared to the victim "by sight, touch or sound” that he or she was being threatened by a gun *(People v Baskerville,*60 NY2d 374, 381). Here, this element was satisfied by the complainant’s testimony, credited by the jury, that defendant held a "round metal piece” about a half inch in diameter in his hand, which was inside his coat sleeve, and that the complainant, upon hearing defendant demand that she turn over her money, believed the object to be a gun.

Defendant’s claim that testimony of the arresting officer had an improper "bolstering effect” is unpreserved, and in any event without merit since the officer was referring to his own observations prior to arresting defendant *(People v Acosta,*174 AD2d 363, 364, *lv denied*78 NY2d 1073).

The prosecutor’s summation remarks referred to on appeal were fair responses to credibility matters initially raised by the defense.

Defendant’s claim that the trial court’s charge on the firearm display element was improper is unpreserved, and in any event without merit. The instruction that one element to be satisfied was "that in the course of the commission of such forcible stealing, the defendant displayed what appeared to be a pistol” was a verbatim recitation of the statutory language (see, Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [b]), and adequately conveyed the appropriate standard. Nor did the court’s identification charge contain insufficient instructions *(People v Navallo,*186 AD2d 156). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.
#### § 102-75.1280 What happens if the property has already been declared surplus and an agency discovers a need for it?

GSA can redesignate surplus property as excess property, if the agency requests the property for use in direct support of its mission and GSA is satisfied that this transfer would be in the best interests of the Federal Government.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-24023-SCOLA/GOODMAN

KENNETH C. GRIFFIN,

Plaintiff, 

 

v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE and U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

Defendant. 

______________________________________/

DECLINATION TO PROCEED BEFORE A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and in response to the Court’s 

Second Amended Scheduling Order (ECF 146), the parties submit this joint notice indicating 

whether they consent to jurisdiction before the designated Magistrate Judge for purposes of final 

disposition. The parties to the above-captioned civil matter respectfully decline to have a United 

States Magistrate Judge conduct all further proceedings in this case and request to proceed before 

a District Judge. 

/s/ Jason D. Sternberg /s/ Mary Elizabeth Smith

Jason D. Sternberg Mary Elizabeth Smith

Florida Bar No. 72887 Maryland Bar No. 0712110235

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART Trial Attorney, Tax Division

& SULLIVAN LLP U.S. Department of Justice

2601 South Bayshore Dr, Suite 1550 P.O. Box 14198

Miami, FL 33133 Washington, D.C. 20044

(305) 402-4880 214-880-9779 (v) | 214-880-9741 (f)

jasonsternberg@quinnemanuel.com Mary.E.Smith@usdoj.gov

Counsel for Plaintiff Counsel for Defendants

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 162 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this 10th day of June, 2024, I filed a copy of the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF electronic filing system, which will send 

notification to all counsel of record.

By: /s/ Jason D. Sternberg

Jason D. Sternberg

Fla. Bar. No. 72887

jasonsternberg@quinnemanuel.com

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 162 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024 Page 2 of 2
#### Motion for Reargument.

NOVEMBER 22, 1963.

*Halpert & Beaver, Kenneth M. Beaver,*for petitioner.

*Anthony Vacca,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

After our decision in the above case was filed, the petitioner by permission of the court presented a motion for leave to reargue. He contends therein that the court fias either overlooked or misconceived certain evidence as it relates to the possibility of the reconciliation of the parties. Upon consideration thereof we are of the opinion that such assertions as to the state of the record raise an issue of sufficient importance to warrant further arguments on the narrow issue of the possibility of a reconciliation in the circumstances stated.

As thus restricted motion for leave to reargue is granted.
#### § 102-74.495 If a permit involves demonstrations or activities that may lead to civil disturbances, what action must a Federal agency take before approving such a permit application?

Before approving a permit application, Federal agencies must coordinate with their law enforcement organization if a permit involves demonstrations or activities that may lead to civil disturbances.
§ 102-85.215 What if another customer agency forces a GSA customer to move? If a GSA customer agency, or GSA, forces the relocation of another GSA customer agency prior to the expiration of the customer's OA, the “forcing” agency is responsible: ( a ) For all reasonable costs associated with the relocation of the agency being “forced” to move, including architectural-engineering design, move coordination and physical relocation, telecommunications and ADP equipment relocation and installation;
( b ) To GSA for all of the relocated agency's unpaid tenant improvements, if any; and
( c ) To the customer agency for the undepreciated amount of any lump sum payment that was already made by the agency for alterations.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 26

                SCHEDULE II -- VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
                                 (in thousands)



ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                   BALANCE
                 AT BEGINNING                                    BALANCE AT
                   OF YEAR        PROVISIONS     WRITE-OFFS     END OF YEAR
<S>                  <C>             <C>           <C>              <C> 

          1998       $838            $349          $(450)           $737
          1997       $354            $628          $(144)           $838
          1996       $286            $124          $ (56)           $354
</TABLE>




RESTRUCTURING RESERVES:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   DEDUCTIONS -
                                         BALANCE AT   CHARGED TO    PAYMENTS OF    BALANCE AT
                                         JANUARY 1,   COSTS AND    RESTRUCTURING  DECEMBER 31,
             DESCRIPTION                    1998       EXPENSES        COSTS          1998

<S>                                          <C>        <C>            <C>           <C>   
Surplus equipment                            $--        $2,823         $  --         $2,823

Purchase commitments                          --         1,127          (436)           691

Lease terminations and leasehold
improvements reserve
                                              --           382           (54)           328

Employee separation                           --           550          (223)           327

Total restructuring reserves                 $--        $4,882         $(713)        $4,169
                                             ===        =======        ======        ======
</TABLE>


                                     - 54 -