alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES

OCTAVIO COLLADO,

Plaintiff, COLLECTIVE ACTION 

vs.

450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC,

D/B/A KIKI ON THE RIVER, 

RJ RIVER, LLC AND 

ROMAN JONES,

Defendants.

______________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF FILING CONSENT TO JOIN 

(Livan Gonzalez) 

 

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

Join in these proceedings by Livan Gonzalez.

Dated this 31st day of July 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(s)

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 178 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2023 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5193 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5193

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
      To amend the National Housing Act to temporarily extend the 
applicability of the downpayment simplification provisions for the FHA 
           single family housing mortgage insurance program.

    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 ``FHA Downpayment Simplification 
Extension Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF APPLICABILITY OF DOWNPAYMENT SIMPLIFICATION 
              PROVISIONS.

    Subparagraph (A) of section 203(b)(10) of the National Housing Act 
(12 U.S.C. 1709(b)(10)(A)) is amended by striking ``executed for 
insurance in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000'' and inserting ``closed 
on or before October 30, 2000''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 19, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5193

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

      To amend the National Housing Act to temporarily extend the 
applicability of the downpayment simplification provisions for the FHA 
           single family housing mortgage insurance program.
```
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

EXHIBIT

“B”

EXHIBIT “B”

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 65-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 65-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 65-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 65-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 4 of 9
Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 65-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 5 of 9
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       6,228,567
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  355,207
<ALLOWANCES>                                    86,000
<INVENTORY>                                    542,610
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,170,037
<PP&E>                                         839,185
<DEPRECIATION>                                 517,229
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,797,199
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,748,453
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,438
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,306,962
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,797,199
<SALES>                                      1,476,112
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,117,764
<CGS>                                        1,049,308
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,049,308
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,242,415
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,837,346)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,837,346)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,837,346)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.49)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 101-27.507 Transportation and other costs.

Transportation costs for the movement of material to GSA and handling costs for preparation and shipment shall be paid by the activity shipping the material to GSA.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

COLEEN RENEE REYES, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-10406 

D.C. No. 1:16-cr-00038-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Guam

Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 18, 2021**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Coleen Renee Reyes appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 97-month sentence imposed following her jury-trial conviction for 

attempted possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 25 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-10406

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Reyes contends that the district court should have exercised its authority to 

depart downward under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. She argues that the government’s 

decision not to file a § 5K1.1 motion was intended to punish her for exercising her 

Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and was not rationally related to a legitimate 

governmental interest.1 “[T]he district court’s factual findings regarding the 

Government’s reasons for refusing to file a § 5K1.1 motion are reviewed for clear 

error.” United States v. Flores, 559 F.3d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 2009). 

 The government explained at sentencing that the information Reyes 

provided after her trial was not timely or beneficial. The government substantiated 

that assertion, and the record does not support Reyes’s claim of an ulterior 

improper motive. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in finding that 

the government’s refusal to file a § 5K1.1 motion was neither unconstitutionally 

motivated nor arbitrary. See id. at 1020 (“[W]hether the assistance provided was 

actually substantial is a decision that better rests with the prosecutor, not the 

court.”). Because the district court could not grant the departure after the 

government legitimately declined to move for it, see id. at 1019, the court had no 

1

 Reyes also argues that the government improperly refused to file a motion under 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), which governs relief from the mandatory minimum. 

However, the government did move for safety valve relief under that statute and, as 

a result, Reyes received a sentence below the otherwise applicable mandatory 

minimum. 
3 19-10406

occasion to consider the § 5K1.1 factors and we need not reach Reyes’s arguments

that the court misunderstood the standard under § 5K1.1 and failed to explain its 

reasoning adequately. 

AFFIRMED.
##### 



TRI-ISTHMUS GROUP, INC.
    
    2007 FORM 10-KT/A
 
 Exhibit 21.1
 Subsidiaries of Tri-Isthmus Group, Inc. (f/k/a Vsource, Inc.)
 Name
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationDel Mar Acquisition, Inc.
    
    NevadaDel Mar GenPar, Inc.
    
    NevadaOutpatient Surgery of Del Mar, LLC
    
    CaliforniaOutpatient Surgery of Point Loma, LLC
    
    CaliforniaPoint Loma Acquisition, Inc.
    
    NevadaPoint Loma GenPar, Inc.
    
    NevadaRHA Anadarko, LLC
    
    OklahomaRHA Stroud, LLC
    
    OklahomaRHA Tishomingo, LLC
    
    OklahomaRural Hospital Acquisition, LLC
    
    OklahomaSurgical Center Acquisition Holdings, Inc.
    
    NevadaSurgical Center Management, Inc.
    
    NevadaVirtual Source, Inc.
    
    NevadaVsource (USA) Inc.
    
    DelawareVsource (California) Inc.
    
    CaliforniaVsource (CI) Ltd
    
    Cayman IslandsVsource (Asia) Ltd
    
    Hong KongVsource (BVI) Ltd
    
    British Virgin IslandsVsource (Singapore) Pte Ltd
    
    SingaporeVsource (Nevada) Ltd
    
    Nevada
Exhibit 10.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-11842,
333-9352, 333-11154, 333-13686, 333-111112 and 333-111113) and on Form F-3 (Registration Nos. 333-12996,
333-11250 and 333-109766) of our report dated February 1, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of NICE Systems Ltd. included in this Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003.

|Tel-Aviv, Israel
April 28, 2004 |  | /s/KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERERKOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER
A Member of Ernst & Young Global
|------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM   Document 172-22   Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024   Page 1 of 2

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM   Document 172-22   Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024   Page 2 of 2
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JOSEPH ANTHONY NASTASI, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-1939

)

KODIE JEAN NASTASI, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed April 20, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee 

County; Robert Branning, Judge.

Joseph Anthony Nastasi, pro se.

No appearance for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, VILLANTI, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
§ 105-60.1006 Procedure where response to demand is required prior to receiving instructions. ( a ) If a response to a demand is required before the Appropriate Authority's decision is issued, a GSA attorney designated by the Appropriate Authority for the purpose shall appear with the employee or former employee upon whom the demand has been made, and shall furnish the judicial or other authority with a copy of the instructions contained in this subpart. The attorney shall inform the court or other authority that the demand has been or is being referred for the prompt consideration by the Appropriate Authority. The attorney shall respectfully request the judicial or administrative authority to stay the demand pending receipt of the requested instructions.
( b ) The designated GSA attorney shall coordinate GSA's response with DOJ's Civil Division or the relevant Office of the United States Attorney and may request that a DOJ or Assistant United States Attorney appear with the employee in addition to or in lieu of a designated GSA attorney.
( c ) If an immediate demand for production or disclosure is made in circumstances which preclude the appearance of a GSA or DOJ attorney on the behalf of the employee or the former employee, the employee or former employee shall respectfully make a request to the demanding authority for sufficient time to obtain advice of counsel.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 22-cv-24031-GAYLES

NISSIM SULEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v. 

DARDEN RESTAURANT INC.

SELF INSURANCE FOR YARD HOUSE

USA INC., a Delaware Corporation, DBA 

YARD HOUSE

Defendant,

____________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on a sua sponte review of the record.

Plaintiff, Nissim Suleman, appearing pro se, filed this action on December 13, 2022.

[ECF No. 1].In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is suing “Defendant Darden Restaurant Inc.

Self Insurance and Subsidiaries for Yard House USA Inc. d/b/a Yard House” (“Defendant”) for 

fraud. Attached to the Complaint are over three hundred pages from the docket in Nissim Suleman 

v. Yard House USA, Inc. d/b/a Yard House, Case No. 201803246 CA 01, a civil action pending in 

the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida (the “State Court Case”).

Shortly after Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint, this Court entered an Order directing 

Plaintiff to file a pleading establishing the basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction over his 

claims. [ECF No. 4]. In response, Plaintiff filed several documents which indicate that Plaintiff is 

asking this Court to review the State Court Case. See [ECF No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. However, this 

Court does not have jurisdiction to review ongoing state court proceedings. Moreover, in the event 

a final judgment has been entered in the State Court Case, Plaintiff’s claims would be barred by 

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. “The Rooker–Feldman doctrine makes clear that federal district 

courts cannot review state court final judgments because that task is reserved for state appellate 

Case 1:22-cv-24031-DPG Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

courts or, as a last resort, the United States Supreme Court.” Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 

1260 (11th Cir.2009) (per curiam). The doctrine applies “both to federal claims raised in the state 

court and to those ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the state court's judgment.” Id. (citation omitted).

Based thereon, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and

CLOSED for administrative purposes. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 5th day of January, 2023.

________________________________

DARRIN P. GAYLES

` UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-24031-DPG Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2023 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                        REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Childtime Learning Centers, Inc. and Subsidiaries:

    In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements listed in the index
appearing under Item 14(a)(1) on page 24 present fairly, in all material
respects, the financial position of Childtime Learning Centers, Inc. and
Subsidiaries (the "Company") at March 29, 2002 and March 30, 2001, and the
results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three fiscal
years in the period ended March 29, 2002 in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In addition, in
our opinion, the financial statement schedule listed in the index appearing
under Item 14(a)(2) on page 24 presents fairly, in all material respects, the
information set forth therein when read in conjunction with the related
consolidated financial statements. These financial statements and financial
statement schedule are the responsibility of the Company's management; our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and
financial statement schedule based on our audits. We conducted our audits of
these statements in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the
United States of America which require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of
material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing
the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our
audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

     As discussed in Note 2(k) to the Company's Consolidated Financial
Statements, effective April 1, 2000, the Company changed its method of
recognizing revenue associated with accounting for registration fees.

/S/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Detroit, Michigan
June 26, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 123 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15986]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Section 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on May 15, 2000, Celgene 
Corporation, 7 Powder Horn Drive, Warren, New Jersey 07059, made 
application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for 
registration as a bulk manufacturer of methylphenidate (1724) a basic 
class of controlled substance listed in Schedule II.
    The firm plans to manufacture methylphenidate for product research 
and development.
    Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered 
with DEA to manufacture such substance may file comments or objections 
to the issuance of the proposed registration.
    Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, 
to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, 
Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, 
Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative 
(CCR), and must be filed no later than August 25, 2000.

    Dated: June 14, 2000.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-15986 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.18
 
SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS
 
Independent non-employee directors of Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. (the “Company”) will receive the following compensation in 2017:


An annual retainer fee of $110,000.


The committee chairpersons will receive additional annual fees as follows:
	
				
	Lead Independent Director
	$
	50,000
	


	Audit Committee Chairperson
	$
	35,000
	


	Compensation Committee Chairperson
	$
	35,000
	


	Nominating & Governance Committee Chairperson
	$
	35,000
	


	Science and Technology Committee Chairperson
	$
	20,000
	





 


The committee members, other than the chairpersons, will receive additional annual fees as follows:
	
				
	Audit Committee Member
	$
	20,000
	


	Compensation Committee Member
	$
	20,000
	


	Nominating & Governance Committee Member
	$
	20,000
	


	Science and Technology Committee Member
	$
	6,000
	


	Pricing Committee Member
	$
	6,000
	







Reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses incurred to attend related meetings.


A restricted stock grant of 1,005 shares of common stock on January 13, 2017, under the Company’s Amended and Restated 1997 Stock Award and Incentive Plan.  Such shares vest over a period from March 31, 2017 to March 31, 2020.


The Company’s independent non-employee directors may elect to defer all or any portion of the fees above in accordance with the Company’s deferred compensation plan for its directors.


Directors who are also employees of the Company will not receive any compensation for their services as directors of the Company.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1]

      ( print page 38010)    
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of E-Pawn.com, Inc. (“E-Pawn”) because of questions regarding the accuracy of assertions by E-Pawn, and by others, in documents sent to and statements made to market makers of the stock of E-Pawn, other broker-dealers, and to investors concerning, among other things, the identity of the persons in control of the operations and management of the company. In addition, recent market activity in E-Pawn securities may be the result of manipulative conduct or other illegal activity.

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above listed company.

Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to section 12(k) of the Securities Act of 1934, that trading in the above listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT, June 14, 2000 through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on June 27, 2000.

By the Commission.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-15444 Filed 6-14-00; 5:08 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
No. 11-9215.

#### Essary *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
8/4/2015 Request for Information ­ FAA­2015­2213

https://email.dot.gov/owa/9­AWA­AVS­333Exemptions@faa.gov/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABFvqQJAFf5SI8crGhIsEIyBwD3qfMUO7BCQ74YBi9P12... 1/1

Request for Information ­ FAA­2015­2213

9­AWA­AVS­333Exemptions (FAA)

Sent:Tuesday, August 04, 2015 9:01 AM

To: MEOLSEN@YAHOO.COM

Dear Mr. Olsen:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA−2015−2213).

This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order

8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove

closed‐set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested

response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non‐proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want

us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 8/18/15. If we do not

receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267­4264.

Sincerely,

Dan Ngo

FAA Office of Rulemaking