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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:22-cv-24066-KMM

GRACE, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF MIAMI,

Defendant.

/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s request for permission to allow the 

following individuals to access the Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse with the following 

electronic devices to attend the trial in this case, on January 29, January 30, January 31, 

February 2, February 5, and February 6, 2024:

1. Stephen Najarian, Trial Technology Consultant to Plaintiffs’ Counsel: 

HDMI switch, surge protector, mobile phone, and two laptop computers.

2. Layssa Zamora, Paralegal with Plaintiffs’ Counsel ACLU of Florida:

Laptop computer and mobile phone.

3. Joseph Dye, Paralegal with Plaintiffs’ Counsel ACLU of Florida:

Laptop computer and mobile phone.

4. Carolyn Abott, Plaintiffs’ Witness:

Insulin pump, blood monitor, and mobile phone for the purpose of accessing continuous 

glucose monitor.

UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being 

fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the aforementioned 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 160 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2024 Page 1 of 2
2

individuals and devices shall be permitted into Court for use during the trial scheduled for the

two-week trial period commencing on January 29, 2024.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this ____ day of January, 2024.

K. MICHAEL MOORE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

c: All counsel of record

25th

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 160 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2024 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

___________________________________ )

CARL PARKER

, et al.

, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 17

- 2834 (PLF)

)

UNITED STATES DEPART MENT OF )

AGRICULTURE, )

)

Defendant. )

___________________________________ )

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the Opinion issued this same day, it is hereby

ORDERED that the government’s mo tion to dismiss the complaint for failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted [Dkt. No. 12] is GRANTED pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ re

- petition for mandamus a ction to

compel a formal hearing, the removal of a lien, or other review of the monitor’s decision denying

a formal hearing [Dkt. No. 13] is DENIED ; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for discovery [Dkt. No. 20] is

DENIED as moot ; and it is2 FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is

directed to close this case.

This is a final appealable order. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 4(a).

SO ORDERED.

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

United States District J udge

DATE: September 11, 2019
# Comments on: 2021-1896: Bryant v. DVA
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Jacob Inbar,Chief Executive Officer of AML Communications Inc., (the “Company”), certifythat:

1.     I havereviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of AML Communications, Inc.;

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)          Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: July 7, 2005 |
|-------------------------|
| /s/ JACOB INBAR         |   |   | By: | Jacob Inbar |
| Chief Executive Office  |

 

----
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION


REQUIRED
BY RULE 13a-14(b) or


RULE
15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


(AS
ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)





I, Richard W. Lucas, as Chief Financial
Officer of KSW, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





(1) the accompanying Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (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 Company.





Dated:  March
19, 2010





/s/ Richard W. LucasRichard
      W. LucasChief
      Financial Officer
II

Calendar No. 612

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 642

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 19, 1999

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

JUNE 21, 2000

Reported by Mr. THOMPSON, without amendment

AN ACT

To redesignate the Federal building located at 701 South

Santa Fe Avenue in Compton, California, and known

as the Compton Main Post Office, as the ‘‘Mervyn Malcolm Dymally Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building located at 701 South Santa Fe

5 Avenue in Compton, California, and known as the Comp6 ton Main Post Office, shall be known and designated as

7 the ‘‘Mervyn Malcolm Dymally Post Office Building’’.
2

•HR 642 RS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

4 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

5 a reference to the ‘‘Mervyn Malcolm Dymally Post Office

6 Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives November 18,

1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.

Calendar No. 612

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 642

AN ACT

To redesignate the Federal building located at 701

South Santa Fe Avenue in Compton, California,and known as the Compton Main Post Office, asthe ‘‘Mervyn Malcolm Dymally Post Office Building’’.

JUNE 21, 2000

Reported without amendment
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-24270-GAYLES

NINGBO YONGJIA AIDUO 

AUTO PARTS MANU CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS 

AND UNINCORPORATED 

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED 

ON SCHEDULE “A”,

Defendants.

_________________________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO UNSEAL

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff NINGBO YONGJIA AIDUO AUTO 

PARTS MANU CO., LTD.’s Motion to Unseal (“Motion”) [ECF No. 41]. The Court has 

carefully reviewed the Motion and the record and is otherwise fully advised.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Unseal, [ECF No. 41], is GRANTED; 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal all docket entries in this case and return 

those portions of the Court file to the public records; and 

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to OPEN this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 27th day of February, 2023.

________________________________

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: All Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-24270-DPG Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2023 Page 1 of 1
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Health Evolve Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Elizabeth Muratova, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Peter C. Merani, P.C. (Eric M. Wahrburg of counsel), for appellant.Diamond Law Group, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Steven Z. Mostofsky, J.), entered August 16, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims which defendant had denied on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for independent medical examinations.</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims which defendant had denied on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for independent medical examinations is granted.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment and, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims which defendant had denied on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs). The Civil Court denied defendant's cross motion, but found, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that the only issue for trial was whether plaintiff's <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs.</p><p>The affirmations and affidavits defendant submitted from the medical providers who were to perform the IMEs of plaintiff's assignor were sufficient to establish that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs (<a href="../2006/2006_09604.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.</i>, 35 AD3d 720</a> [2006]; <a href="../2012/2012_51628.htm" target="_blank"><i>Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co.</i>, 36 Misc 3d 146</a>[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51628[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2012]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims which defendant had denied on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for IMEs is granted.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: May 03, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:22-cv-24066-KMM

GRACE, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF MIAMI,

Defendant.

/

PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL

Pursuant to Local Rule 11.1(d)(3)(A), Plaintiffs move to withdraw attorney Jocelyn Kirsch 

from this case as counsel for Plaintiffs. As grounds therefore, Plaintiffs state:

1. Ms. Kirsch left her employment with Dechert LLP.

2. On June 6, 2023, counsel for Plaintiffs provided notice to Plaintiffs of Ms. Kirsch’s intent 

to withdraw from representation.

3. Plaintiffs consent to Ms. Kirsch’s withdrawal from representation.

4. On June 27, 2023, Plaintiffs notified counsel for Defendant of Ms. Kirsch’s intent to 

withdraw from representation.

5. Defendant does not oppose Ms. Kirsch’s withdrawal from representation.

6. Xe remaining co-counsel of record will continue to represent Plaintiffs in this case.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant Jocelyn Kirsch leave to 

withdraw.

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL

Counsel for Plaintiffs conferred with counsel for Defendant, who does not oppose this 

motion.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of June, 2023.

/s/ Nicholas L.V. Warren

Nicholas L.V. Warren (FBN 1019018)

ACLU Foundation of Florida, Inc.

336 East College Avenue, Suite 203

Tallahassee, FL 32301

(786) 363-1769

nwarren@aclufl.org

Daniel B. Tilley (FBN 102882)

Caroline A. McNamara (FBN 1038312)

ACLU Foundation of Florida, Inc.

4343 West Flagler Street, Suite 400

Miami, FL 33134

(786) 363-2714

dtilley@aclufl.org

cmcnamara@aclufl.org

Neil A. Steiner*

Dechert LLP

Xree Bryant Park

1095 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

(212) 698-3822

neil.steiner@dechert.com

Christopher J. Merken*

Dechert LLP

Cira Centre

2929 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19104

(215) 994-2380

christopher.merken@dechert.com

* Admitted pro hac vice

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2023 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 23.2


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


          We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
     Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-21735 and No. 33-350293) of
     KSW, Inc. of our report dated February 19, 2003, except for Notes 14 and 15
     for which date is March 19, 2004 which appears on page F-2, relating to the
     consolidated financial statements which are included in this Amendment No.
     1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.



      Rosen, Seymour, Shapss, Martin & Company


      New York, New York
      March 19, 2004
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5331

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 4 (legislative day SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Received

AN ACT

To authorize the Frederick Douglass Gardens, Inc., to establish a memorial and gardens on Department of the Interior lands in the District of Columbia or its environs

in honor and commemoration of Frederick Douglass.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 5331 RDS

1 SECTION 1. MEMORIAL AND GARDENS TO HONOR AND

2 COMMEMORATE FREDERICK DOUGLASS.

3 (a) MEMORIAL AND GARDENS AUTHORIZED.—The

4 Frederick Douglass Gardens, Inc., is authorized to estab5 lish a memorial and gardens on lands under the adminis6 trative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior in the

7 District of Columbia or its environs in honor and com8 memoration of Frederick Douglass.

9 (b) COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS FOR COMMEMO10 RATIVE WORKS.—The establishment of the Frederick

11 Douglass memorial and gardens shall be in accordance

12 with the Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1001 et

13 seq.).

14 (c) PAYMENT OF EXPENSES.—The Frederick Doug15 lass Gardens, Inc., shall be solely responsible for accept16 ance of contributions for, and payment of the expenses

17 of, the establishment of the memorial and gardens. No

18 Federal funds may be used to pay any expense of the es19 tablishment of the memorial and gardens.

20 (d) DEPOSIT OF EXCESS FUNDS.—If, upon payment

21 of all expenses of the establishment of the memorial and

22 gardens (including the maintenance and preservation

23 amount required under section 8(b) of the Commemora24 tive Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1008(b)), or upon expiration

25 of the authority for the memorial and gardens under sec26 tion 10(b) of such Act (40 U.S.C. 1010(b)), there remains
3

HR 5331 RDS

1 a balance of funds received for the establishment of the

2 memorial and gardens, Frederick Douglass Gardens, Inc.,

3 shall transmit the amount of the balance to the Secretary

4 of the Treasury for deposit in the account provided for

5 in section 8(b)(1) of such Act (40 U.S.C. 1008(b)(1)).

Passed the House of Representatives October 3,

2000.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
§ 109-45.5005-1 General. ( a ) Nuclear-related, proliferation-sensitive, low level contaminated property, and classified personal property shall not be transferred, sold, exchanged, leased, donated, abandoned, or destroyed without approval of the cognizant program office. Disposal of this personal property is subject to the restrictions contained in applicable sections of part 109-42 and §§ 109-43.307-50, 109-43.307-51, and 109-43.307-52 of this chapter, and applicable sections of 41 CFR part 101-42.
( b ) Personal property that is considered defective or unsafe must be mutilated prior to shipment for disposal.
Case 1:22-cv-23867-DPG   Document 18   Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2023   Page 1 of 4

Case 1:22-cv-23867-DPG   Document 18   Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2023   Page 2 of 4

Case 1:22-cv-23867-DPG   Document 18   Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2023   Page 3 of 4

Case 1:22-cv-23867-DPG   Document 18   Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2023   Page 4 of 4
Exhibit 32.1



|              |  |          
|------------- |  | ---------
|BESTWAY, INC. |  | FORM 10-Q



Certification of

Chief Executive Officer

of Bestway, Inc.



This certification is provided pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the Form 10-Q) for the quarter ended October 31, 2004 of Bestway, Inc. (the Issuer).



I, David A. Kraemer, the Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer, certify that to the best of
my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |       |  |                     
|-------------------- |  | ----- |  | --------------------
|Date: April 15, 2005 |  | By:   |  | /s/ David A. Kraemer
|                     |  | Name: |  | David A. Kraemer    



Subscribed and sworn to before me

this 15th day of April, 2005.



|                      |  |                  
|--------------------- |  | -----------------
|/s/ Jeanne A. Andress
|Name:                 |  | Jeanne A. Andress
|Title:                |  | Notary Public    



My commission expires: 4/13/2006
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Albertson's, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended July 29, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Lawrence R. Johnston
and Felicia D. Thornton, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,
respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our
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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
            Report.

September 2, 2004

\S\ Lawrence R. Johnston
------------------------------------
Lawrence R. Johnston
Chief Executive Officer

\S\ Felicia D. Thornton
------------------------------------
Felicia D. Thornton
Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30644

Summary Calendar

KYIDE TOLBERT,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JAMES M. LEBLANC; TONIA RACHAL; C.A. LOWE, JR.,,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:11-CV-2034

Before DeMOSS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Kyide Tolbert, Louisiana prisoner # 306899, appeals the dismissal of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim. Tolbert contends that he

suffered damages due to a miscalculation of his sentence that failed to give him

two years of credit for an expired sentence for armed robbery. The error was

corrected before Tolbert filed this action.

Tolbert fails to address and thus abandons any challenge to the district

court’s reasons for dismissal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 15, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-30644 Document: 00512144723 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2013
No. 12-30644

1993) (issues not briefed are abandoned). And we need not consider Tolbert’s

double claims of jeopardy and the denial of procedural due process because he

raises them for the first time on appeal. See Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S.

Auto Glass Discount Centers, Inc., 200 F.3d 307, 316-17 (5th Cir. 2000); Leverette

v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). 

Thus, while Tolbert argues to excess about the entirely uncontested fact

that his sentence was temporarily miscalculated, he fails to allege any fact that

would establish that the error caused him any injury or deprivation of a

protected liberty interest. See Murray v. Earle, 405 F. 3d 278, 290 (5th Cir.

2005) (noting that § 1983 requires a showing of proximate causation); Baldwin

v. Daniels, 250 F.3d 943, 946 (5th Cir. 2001) (noting that a plaintiff must show

that the defendant’s action resulted in a deprivation of a protected interest). 

Tolbert simply assumes that the error itself entitles him to damages. The

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-30644 Document: 00512144723 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2013