alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-24156-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

RENÉ GARCIA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KERRIE J. STILLMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

ORDER DEFERRING MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion for Stay of Preliminary 

Injunction Pending Appeal, ECF No. [57] (“Motion”), filed on March 16, 2023. On April 7, 2023, 

Defendants filed a substantively identical Motion for Stay Pending Appeal before the Eleventh 

Circuit Court of Appeals. See No. 23-10872, Garcia v. Exec. Dir., Fla. Comm’n on Ethics (11th 

Cir. Apr. 7, 2023). In both Motions, Defendants seek an order partially staying the Court’s Order 

on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. [52].

“[A] federal district court and a federal court of appeals should not attempt to assert 

jurisdiction over a case simultaneously. The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional 

significance – it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its 

control over the aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer 

Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam). The Court was divested of jurisdiction to 

consider Defendants’ Motion for Stay on April 7, 2023, when Defendants sought that identical 

relief from the Eleventh Circuit. 

Case 1:22-cv-24156-BB Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/11/2023 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 22-cv-24156-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

2

In these circumstances, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 provides that the Court may: 

(1) defer considering the motion; (2) deny the motion; or (3) state either that it would grant the 

motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial 

issue.” Upon careful consideration of the facts of this case, and a comparison of the Defendants’ 

two Motions – which reveal that Defendants’ appellate Motion is significantly more developed

than the Motion filed before this Court – the Court will DEFER considering the Motion, ECF No. 

[57].

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on April 11, 2023.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-24156-BB Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/11/2023 Page 2 of 2
Order filed September 12, 2019

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-19-00051-CV

__________

JACK LEE BISHOP, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF 

THE JACK LEE BISHOP TRUST, Appellant

V.

JOEL BISHOP, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE 

JAY D. BISHOP TRUST AND AS INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR 

OF THE ESTATE OF JAY D. BISHOP, DECEASED, ET AL., 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 266th District Court

Erath County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV32823

O R D E R

Appellant has filed in this court a motion to stay. Appellant indicates that a 

second mediation session would be beneficial and that Appellees are not opposed to 

the stay. The Honorable Judge Jerry Ray has agreed to mediate this case sometime 
2

during October 2019. We grant the motion to stay and abate the appeal so that the 

parties may continue their efforts to settle the controversy. 

This appeal is now abated pending mediation, which is to be conducted on or 

before October 31, 2019, with Judge Jerry Ray. The parties are instructed to notify 

this court of the mediation results within ten days of the completion of mediation. If 

mediation fully resolves the issues in this appeal, the parties shall file a joint motion 

in accordance with TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2). 

PER CURIAM

September 12, 2019

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

Willson, J., not participating. 

 1

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.
§ 302-9.209 Under what conditions may my agency authorize me to transport from my post of duty a replacement POV purchased at that post of duty? Your agency may authorize transportation of a replacement POV purchased at a post of duty from the same post of duty only if: ( a ) At the time you purchased the replacement POV, you met the conditions in § 302-9.172; and
( b ) Prior to purchase of the replacement POV, your agency authorized you to purchase a replacement POV at the post of duty.
No. 11-8396.

#### Watford *v.*Warren, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 302-6.32 May I interrupt occupancy of temporary quarters? Yes, your authorized period for claiming TQSE-LP and TQSE-AE reimbursement is measured on consecutive days, and once begun, normally continues to run whether or not you continue to occupy temporary quarters. However, you may interrupt your authorized period for claiming reimbursement in the following instances: ( a ) For the time allowed for official travel en route between the old and new official stations;
( b ) For circumstances attributable to official necessity such as an intervening temporary duty assignment or military duty; or
( c ) For a non-official necessary interruption such as hospitalization, approved sick leave, or other reasons beyond your control and acceptable to your agency.
Exhibit



EXHIBIT 10.1



FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER
This FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER (this “Amendment”) is entered into on November 8, 2019 between NV5 Global, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Parent”) and Geospatial Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). 
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2019, Parent, the Company, NV5 Merger Sub Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and Arlington Capital Partners III, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, solely in its capacity as representative for the Sellers entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Agreement”). 
WHEREAS, Section 9.7 of the Agreement provides that, prior to the Closing (as defined in the Agreement), the Agreement may be amended by a written instrument signed by Parent and the Company.
WHEREAS, Parent and the Company wish to amend the Agreement to change the date referenced in Section 2.1 from December 6, 2019 to December 20, 2019. 
Accordingly, the parties to this Amendment agree to modify and amend the Agreement in the manner set forth in this Amendment effective as of November 6, 2019.
1.Section 2.1 of the Agreement shall be amended to replace the reference to December 6, 2019 with December 20, 2019.
2.Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the terms and provisions of the Agreement, as amended, shall continue to be and shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.  
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized, as of the date first written above.
PARENT:
NV5 GLOBAL, INC. 
By:    /s/ Richard Tong     
Name: Richard Tong 
Title: Executive Vice President
THE COMPANY:
GEOSPATIAL HOLDINGS INC.
By:    /s/ Mark G. Abatto     
Name: Mark G. Abatto 
Title: CFO/COO
No. 11-1076.

#### Clendenin *v.*Illinois.

App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 12

| | WyethComputation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (in thousands except ratio amounts)
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                                               | Nine Months       Ended | Year Ended December 31,
|---------------------------------------------- | ----------------------- | -----------------------
|
|
|Earnings (Loss):                               |                         |                        
|Income (loss) from continuing                  |                        
|operations before income taxes                 |                         | $3,881,619             
|Add:                                           |                        
|Fixed charges                                  |                         | 324,817                
|Minority interests                             |                         | 15,348                 
|Amortization of capitalized interest           |                         | 16,083                 
|Less:                                          |                        
|Equity income (loss)                           |                         | (83                    
|Capitalized interest                           |                         | 31,200                 
|                                               |                         |                        
|Total earnings (loss) as defined               |                         | $4,206,750             
|                                               |                         |                        
|Fixed Charges:                                 |                        
|Interest and amortization of debt
     expense |                         | $   254,275            
|Capitalized interest                           |                         | 31,200                 
|Interest factor of rental expense (1)          |                         | 39,342                 
|                                               |                         |                        
|Total fixed charges as defined                 |                         | $   324,817            
|                                               |                         |                        
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (2)         |                         | 13.0                   

|(1) | A
1/3 factor was used to compute the portion of rental expenses deemed
representative of the interest factor.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | The
results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2000 was inadequate to
cover total fixed charges as defined. The coverage deficiency for the
year ended December 31, 2000 was $1,171,633.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 10-11092.

#### Howard *v.*California.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-rari denied.
#### § 302-12.6 If I use a contracted-for relocation service that is a substitute for reimbursable relocation allowance, will I be reimbursed for the relocation allowance as well?

No, if you use a contracted-for relocation service that is a substitute for reimbursable relocation allowance, you will not be reimbursed for the relocation as well.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001. Redesignated at 76 FR 18343, Apr. 1, 2011]