alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 958.19 Form and filing of documents. ( a ) Every pleading filed in a proceeding under this part must contain a caption setting forth the title of the action, the docket number (after assignment by the Recorder), an accurate designation of the document, and the name, address, and telephone number of the party on whose behalf the paper was filed. It shall also be signed by the party or party representative submitting the document.
( b ) All pleadings and documents required under this part must be filed using the Judicial Officer electronic filing system unless the presiding officer permits otherwise. The Judicial Officer electronic filing system website is accessible 24 hours a day at *https://usps-judicialoffice.journaltech.com*. Documents submitted using the electronic filing system are considered filed as of the date/time (Eastern Time) reflected in the system. Documents mailed to the Recorder are considered filed on the date mailed as evidenced by a United States Postal Service postmark. Filings by any other means are considered filed upon receipt by the Recorder of a complete copy of the filing during normal business hours. Normal business hours are between 8:45 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. (Eastern Time), Monday through Friday except holidays.
( c ) Pleadings or other document transmittals to, or communications with, the Postal Service, other than to the Recorder under paragraph (a) of this section, shall be made through the Determining Official or designated Postal Service attorney. If a notice of appearance by a representative is filed on behalf of the respondent, pleadings or document transmittals to, or communications with, the respondent shall be made through his or her representative.
[74 FR 18631, Apr. 24, 2009, as amended at 81 FR 40193, June 21, 2016; 89 FR 61021, July 30, 2024]
§ 102-72.69 What additional terms and conditions apply to an Executive agencies' delegation of ancillary repair and alteration authority? ( a ) Before commencing any ancillary repair and alteration work, the Executive agency shall deliver, or cause its contractor to deliver, to the building manager evidence that the contractor has obtained at least $5,000,000 comprehensive general public liability and property damage insurance policies to cover claims arising from or relating to the contractor's operations that cause damage to persons or property; such insurance shall name the United States as an additional insured.
( b ) The Executive agency shall agree that GSA has no responsibility or liability, either directly or indirectly, for any contractual claims or disputes that arise out of or relate to the performance of ancillary repair and alteration work, except to the extent such claim or dispute arises out of or relates to the wrongful acts or negligence of GSA's agents or employees.
( c ) The Executive agency shall agree to administer and defend any claims and actions, and shall be responsible for the payment of any judgments rendered or settlements agreed to, in connection with contract claims or other causes of action arising out of or relating to the performance of the ancillary repair and alteration work.
( d ) For buildings under GSA's custody and control, GSA shall have the right, but not the obligation, to review the work from time to time to ascertain that it is being performed in accordance with the approved project requirements, schedules, plans, drawings, specifications, and other related construction documents. The Executive agency shall promptly correct, or cause to be corrected, any non-conforming work or property damage identified by GSA, including damage to the space or property of any other tenant in the building, at no cost or expense to GSA.
( e ) The Executive agency shall remain liable and financially responsible to GSA for any and all personal or property damage caused, in whole or in part, by the acts or omissions of the Executive agency, its employees, agents, and contractors.
( f ) If the cost or expense to GSA to operate the facility is increased as a result of the ancillary repair and alteration project, the Executive agency shall be responsible for any such costs or expenses.
( g ) Disputes between the Executive agency and GSA arising out of the ancillary repair and alteration work will, to the maximum extent practicable, be resolved informally at the working level. In the event a dispute cannot be resolved informally, the matter shall be referred to GSA's Public Buildings Service. The Executive agency agrees that, in the event GSA's Public Buildings Service and the Executive agency fail to resolve the dispute, they shall refer it for resolution to the Administrator of General Services, whose decision shall be binding.
[74 FR 12273, Mar. 24, 2009]
No. D-2669.

#### In re Discipline of Sinko.

Michael David Sinko, of Cherry Hill, N. J., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
<PAGE>   1
 
EXHIBIT 99: CAUTIONARY STATEMENT FOR PURPOSES OF THE "SAFE HARBOR" PROVISIONS OF
THE PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995
 
     Written or oral statements made by Alcan or its representatives, including
statements set forth in Alcan's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1997,
which describe the Company's or management's objectives, projections, estimates,
expectations or predictions of the future may be "forward-looking statements"
within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995, which can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such
as "believes," "expects," "may," "will," "should," "estimates," "anticipates" or
the negative thereof or other variations thereon. The Company cautions that, by
their nature, forward-looking statements involve risk and uncertainty and that
the Company's actual results could differ materially from those expressed or
implied in such forward-looking statements or could affect the extent to which a
particular projection is realized.
 
     Important factors which could cause the Company's actual performance to
differ materially from projections or expectations included in forward-looking
statements include global aluminum supply and demand conditions, aluminum ingot
prices and changes in other raw materials' costs and availability, cyclical
demand and pricing within the principal markets for the Company's products,
changes in government regulations, particularly those affecting environmental,
health or safety compliance, economic developments and other factors within the
countries in which the Company operates or sells its products and other factors
relating to the Company's ongoing operations including, but not limited to,
litigation, labour negotiations and fiscal regimes.
 
     Copies of the Company's filings may be obtained by contacting the Company
or the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
 
                                       36
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-26-1997
<CASH>                                           17214
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    26228
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     461796
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                519497
<PP&E>                                          103451
<DEPRECIATION>                                   34931
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  595288
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           397277
<BONDS>                                          35539
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           213
<OTHER-SE>                                      103436
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    595288
<SALES>                                         432601
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                437906
<CGS>                                           314235
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   314235
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                130270
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2443
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (8991)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (3061)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5930)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5930)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.28)
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-9334.

#### Octavio Arbelaez *v.*Florida.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.
On November 1, 1999, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     announcing CSX Transportation, Inc.'s (CSXT) request to obtain a temporary waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 229. Specifically, CSXT requests relief from the requirements of 49 CFR 229.27(a)(2), Annual tests, and 49 CFR 229.29(a), Biennial tests, as solely applicable to all present and future installations of the New York Air Brake Corporation's Computer Controlled Brake (CCB) Systems on CSXT locomotives. CSXT is making this request so they can begin the implementation of a Test Plan to prove the new technology incorporated in this brake system is more reliable and safer in the rail transportation industry with the intent of relying on the CCB computer diagnostics to identify defective components and repair as required. The petitioner seeks to move toward a performance-based COTS criterion.                

As a result of comments received by FRA concerning this waiver petition, FRA has determined that a public hearing is necessary before a final decision is made on this petition. Accordingly, a public hearing is hereby set for 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, February 23, 2000, in Conference Room One, Seventh Floor, at 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005. Interested parties are invited to present oral statements at this hearing. The hearing will be informal and will be conducted in accordance with Rule 25 of the FRA Rules of Practice (49 CFR 211.25) by a representative designated by FRA. The FRA representative will make an opening statement outlining the scope of the hearing, as well as any additional procedures for the conduct of the hearing. The hearing will be a non-adversarial proceeding in which all interested parties will be given the opportunity to express their views regarding this waiver petition without cross-examination. After all initial statements have been completed, those persons wishing to make a brief rebuttal will be given an opportunity to do so in the same order in which initial statements were made.

Issued in Washington, DC on January 18, 2000.

Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development.

[FR Doc. 00-1500 Filed 1-20-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
232A93-4

#### State v. Warren Robert Gregory (DEATH)

Def’s Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of Superior Court of Pitt County

Denied
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, June 15, 2000, 8:30 a.m. to June 16, 2000, 5 p.m., Bethesda Holiday Inn, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on June 7, 2000, 65 FR 36154-36156.                

The starting time of the meeting has been changed to 8 a.m. The meeting dates and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: June 14, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-15744  Filed 6-21-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 594

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit candidates

for election to the House of Representatives from accepting contributions

from individuals who do not reside in the district the candidate seeks

to represent.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1999

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

Committee on House Administration

A BILL

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to

prohibit candidates for election to the House of Representatives from accepting contributions from individuals who do not reside in the district the candidate

seeks to represent.

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

•HR 594 IH

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITING HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

2 CANDIDATES FROM ACCEPTING CONTRIBU3 TIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL NONRESIDENTS OF

4 THE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.

5 Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act

6 of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at the end

7 the following new subsection:

8 ‘‘(i) A candidate for the office of Representative in,

9 or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress

10 may not accept a contribution from any individual who

11 is not a resident of the congressional district involved.’’.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Carlaftes, Appellant.

[627 NYS2d 980]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), rendered July 22, 1994, convicting him of rape in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We disagree with the defendant’s contention that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel. The defense counsel’s *313failure to make pretrial motions did not render her performance ineffective in this case *(see, People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 709; *People v Strempack,*71 NY2d 1015; *People v Jackson,*186 AD2d 389). Under the totality of the circumstances, it cannot be said that the defendant was denied his constitutional right to the meaningful representation of counsel *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137).

The defendant’s contention that the defense counsel incorrectly informed him that he would be eligible for work release in three years is dehors the record and may not be raised on the direct appeal *(see, People v Simon,*196 AD2d 851).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his reply brief, and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                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. Section 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form
10-Q (the "Form 10-Q") for the quarter ended January 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:  March 16, 2004                 By:    /s/ David A. Kraemer
                                         --------------------------------------
                                             Name:  David A. Kraemer

Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 16 day of March, 2004.

/s/ Jeanne A. Andress
--------------------------------------------

Name: Jeanne A. Andress
     ---------------------------------------
Title: Notary Public

My commission expires: 4/13/06
**AD Economic Evaluation**



### Docket No . FAA - 2013 - 0478 

### Directorate ID : 2012 - SW - 092 - AD 

### Helicopter Model: Agusta S.p.A. (Type certificate currently held by AgustaWestland S.p.A. Model A109C, A109E, A109S, A109K2, and AW109SP 

### Heli copters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 146 

### Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to failure of the tail rotor and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter negligible Labo r per Helicopter ( 0.25 work- hour x 

### $ 8 5 /work hour for the inspection) (0.25 work- hour x 

### $85/work hour for the lock wire installation) (8 work- hour x 

### $85/work hour for the removal & reassembly) $ 22 per inspection $22 $680 Other (Explain) Total C ost per Helicopter $ 22 per inspection $22 per lock wire installation $680 for the removal & reassembly Total US Fleet Cost $ 3,212 per inspection cycle Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Enginee r : Robert Grant
#### §§ 301-10.118-301-10.119 [Reserved]
§ 105-56.009 Written decision. ( a ) Within 60 days of the employee's filing of a petition for a pre-offset hearing, the hearing official will issue a written decision setting forth— ( 1 ) The facts supporting the nature and origin of the debt;
( 2 ) The hearing official's analysis, findings and conclusions as to the employee's or Agency's grounds;
( 3 ) The amount and validity of the debt; and
( 4 ) The repayment schedule, if applicable.
( b ) The hearing official's decision will be the final Agency action for the purposes of judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 701 *et seq.*).
§ 102-36.55 What is GSA's role in the disposition of excess personal property? In addition to developing and issuing regulations for the management of excess personal property, GSA: ( a ) Screens and offers available excess personal property to Federal agencies and eligible non-federal recipients.
( b ) Approves and processes transfers of excess personal property to eligible activities.
( c ) Determines the amount of reimbursement for transfers of excess personal property when appropriate.
( d ) Conducts sales of surplus and exchange/sale personal property when requested by an agency.
( e ) Maintains an automated system, GSAXcess ®, to facilitate the reporting and transferring of excess personal property.
[65 FR 31218, May 16, 2000, as amended at 71 FR 53571, Sept. 12, 2006]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-61831-CIV-SINGHAL

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

RBF TRUST, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Paulo Fernando de Bastos’ (“de 

Bastos”) Motion to Sever (DE [88]). Plaintiff moves to sever the trial of his case from the 

corporate defendants. The motion is fully briefed. For the reasons discussed below, the 

motion is denied.

Plaintiff alleges that de Bastos and his co-Defendants engaged in a fraudulent, 

unregistered securities offering, raising more than $40 million from hundreds of investors 

in connection with the sale and management of investment properties in Detroit, 

Michigan. The Complaint is brought against deBastos, co-Defendant Joao Pedro 

Fonseca (“Fonseca”), and four corporate Defendants. De Bastos moves to sever his case 

from that of the co-Defendants and argues that failing to sever will “impair his 

constitutional and statutory right to a speedy trial” and affect his ability to mount an 

effective defense. Plaintiff also argues that his alleged involvement in offering 

unregistered securities is much lower than the other defendants.

Rule 42(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “affords a district court discretion to 

order separate trials where such order would further convenience, avoid prejudice, or 

promote efficiency.” Giffin v. City of Opa-Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1301 (11th Cir. 2001). 

Case 0:22-cv-61831-AHS Document 95 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2023 Page 1 of 2
None of these goals would be served by holding separate trials in this case. First, the 

corporate defendants will not be going to trial; default judgments have been entered 

against them. Second, if the corporate Defendants were to proceed to trial, the legal and 

factual proof at trial would greatly overlap; the separate trials would be nearly identical. 

There is no basis for holding separate trials. Bifurcation would not promote judicial 

efficiency, avoid prejudice, or further convenience. To the contrary, separate trials would 

be time consuming, expensive, and duplicative. For these reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to Sever (DE [88]) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 18th day of 

May 2023.

Copies furnished counsel via CM/ECF

and by US Mail to:

Paulo Fernando De Bastos, pro se

c/o TFRE

2637 E. Atlantic Blvd. #1004

Pompano Beach, FL 33062

Case 0:22-cv-61831-AHS Document 95 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2023 Page 2 of 2