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

 / 

CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties to this matter waive 

their right to proceed before a District Judge of this Court and consent to have the Magistrate Judge 

currently assigned to the case, the Honorable Lauren Fleischer Louis, conduct any and all further 

proceedings in the case (including the trial) and order the entry of judgment. The parties do not 

consent to the reassignment to any other or successor Magistrate Judge. 

 Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of February, 2023, 

/s/ Caroline A. McNamara 

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 

 /s/ George T. Levesque 

Jason L. Unger (FBN 991562) 

Andy Bardos (FBN 822671) 

George T. Levesque (FBN 555541) 

GrayRobinson, P.A. 

301 S. Bronough Street, Suite 600 

Tallahassee, FL 32301 

Tel: (850) 577-9090 

Fax: (850) 577-3311 

Christopher N. Johnson (FBN 69329) 

Marlene Quintana (FBN 88358) 

GrayRobinson, P.A. 

333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 3200 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: (305) 416-6880 

Fax: (305) 416-6887 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

Neil A. Steiner* 

Dechert LLP 

ree Bryant Park

1095 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10036 

(212) 698-3822 

neil.steiner@dechert.com 

Christopher J. Merken* 

Jocelyn Kirsch* 

Dechert LLP 

Cira Centre 

2929 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19104 

(215) 994-2380 

christopher.merken@dechert.com 

jocelyn.kirsch@dechert.com 

* Admitted pro hac vice

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Kevin Jones (FBN 119067) 

Bryan Capdevila (FBN 119286) 

Eric Eves (FBN 91053) 

City of Miami, Office of the City Attorney 

444 S.W. 2nd Avenue 

Miami, FL 33130 

Tel: (305) 416-1800 

Fax: (305) 416-1801 

Counsel for Defendant 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2023 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1




                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (No. 333-11357) pertaining to the Company's Employee Stock Purchase
Plan; Form S-8 (No. 333-11553) pertaining to the Company's 1988 Stock Option
Plan; Form S-8 (No. 333-11555) pertaining to the Company's 1993 Stock
Option/Stock Issuance Plan; Form S-8 (No. 333-11557) pertaining to the Company's
Stock Option Agreement with an Employee; Form S-8 (No. 333-11559) pertaining to
the Company's Stock Option Agreement with an Employee, and Form S-8 (No.
333-13301) pertaining to the Company's 1996 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan of
our report dated June 3, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Vanstar Corporation included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended April 30, 1998.


                                                  Ernst & Young LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
July 24, 1998
§ 302-6.204 What factors should we consider in determining what TQSE method(s) to offer an employee? When determining what TQSE method(s) to offer an employee the following factors should be considered: ( a ) *Ease of administration.* You should consider the administrative requirements for each method of TQSE. Factors such as obtaining and reviewing receipts to verify validity, accuracy, and reasonableness of each expense carry an administrative burden to the employee, their immediate family, and you.
( b ) *Cost consideration.* You should weigh the cost of each alternative. TQSE-LP and TQSE-AE reimbursement may extend up to 120 days, while the TQSE-LS payment is limited to a maximum of 30 days.
( c ) *Treatment of employee.* The employee will be reimbursed for TQSE under the “lodgings-plus” method unless you offer one or more of the alternate methods. If you make all methods available to the employee, the employee is allowed to select any one of the methods. You should therefore consider employee morale and productivity against actual cost in determining which method(s) to offer.
Last FirstCompanyAddressCity ST Zip PhoneFaxEmailBrookman Douglas Public Solutions108 Newburg AvenueBaltimore MD 21228 (410) 719-0580 (410) 719-0581 PublicSolutions@earthlink.netBurk Diana Navigant Consulting, Inc.1801 K St., NW, Suite 500Washington DC 20006(202)-481-7362(202)-973-2401Diana.Burk@navigantconsulting.comGraves Linda Department of Energy1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Mailstop EE-2J Washington DC 20585-0121 (202) 586-1851 (202) 586-4617 Linda.Graves@ee.doe.govHakkarainen S. Pekka Lutron Electronics Company, Inc.7200 Suter RoadCoopersburg PA 18036-1299 (610) 282-6766 (610) 282-7477 phakkarainen@lutron.comHansen Dain National Electrical Manufacturers Association 1300 North 17th Street Suite 1752Rosslyn VA 22209 (703) 841.3221 (703) 841-3321 Dain.Hansen@nema.orgMyer Michael Pacific Northwest National Laboratory One Cranberry Hill, 750 Marrett Road, Suite 202 Lexington MA 2421 (781) 869-1418 (781) 869-1421 michael.myer@pnl.govO'Rourke Conan Lighting Research Center21 Union StreetTroy NY 12180 (518) 687-7182 (518) 687-7120 orourc@rpi.eduPinto Francine Department of Energy1000 Independence Avenue, SWWashington DC 20585-0121 (202) 586-7432Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.govSequeira Christopher Navigant Consulting, Inc.1801 K St., NW, Suite 500Washington DC 20006 (202) 481-7383 (202)-973-2401 christopher.sequeira@navigantconsulting.comFluorescent Lamp Test Procedures for Standby and Off Mode Public Meeting - February 2, 2009
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

August 4, 2023

ERRATA

______________________ 

Appeal No. 2022-1226

ROYAL BRUSH MANUFACTURING, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, DIXON TICONDEROGA 

COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

Decided: July 27, 2023

Precedential Opinion

______________________ 

Please make the following change:

In the first sentence of the last paragraph on page 15, delete the word “not.” The corrected sentence should read: 

“The government nonetheless argues that confidential 

business information cannot be disclosed absent a statute 

or regulation authorizing a protective order.”

 

Case: 22-1226 Document: 79 Page: 1 Filed: 08/04/2023
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 87 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                 H. R. 87

   To prohibit internet and mail-order sales of ammunition without a 
 license to deal in firearms, and require licensed firearms dealers to 
   record all sales of 1,000 rounds of ammunition to a single person.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1999

     Mr. Blagojevich (for himself and Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit internet and mail-order sales of ammunition without a 
 license to deal in firearms, and require licensed firearms dealers to 
   record all sales of 1,000 rounds of ammunition to a single person.

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

SECTION 1. BAN ON INTERNET OR MAIL-ORDER SALE OF AMMUNITION WITHOUT A 
              FEDERAL LICENSE TO DEAL IN FIREARMS.

    Section 922(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
            (2) by adding ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B); and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(C) except a licensed dealer, to ship or 
                transport ammunition in interstate or foreign 
                commerce;''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO RECORD SALES OF MORE THAN 1,000 ROUNDS OF 
              AMMUNITION.

    Section 923(g)(3)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting after the 1st sentence the following: ``Each licensee shall 
prepare a report of multiple sales or other dispositions whenever the 
licensee sells or otherwise disposes of 1,000 or more rounds of 
ammunition (other than .22 caliber rimfire ammunition, shotgun shells, 
or primers) to the same person during 1 business day.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall apply to conduct engaged in 
after the 1-year period that begins with the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 13, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50820

Summary Calendar

RICHARD WILLIAM BROWN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 3:03-CV-530-DB

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

Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Richard Brown, a Texas prisoner, was convicted of indecency

with a child and sentenced to serve ten years in prison. Brown

filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition, which the district

court dismissed as untimely. This court granted a certificate of

appealability (“COA”) on the issue whether the delay in notifica-
tion of the denial of Brown’s state habeas application merits

equitable tolling. 

Brown contends that he is actually innocent. We decline to

consider this claim, because he has not received a COA on it. See

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Brown also argues that he is entitled to

equitable tolling based on the delay in notification of the denial

of his state habeas application and because he diligently pursued

relief. 

Brown has not shown that he diligently pursued postconviction

relief, see Phillips v. Donnelly, 216 F.3d 508, 511 (5th Cir.

2000); Coleman v. Johnson, 184 F.3d 398, 403 (5th Cir. 1999), or

that he was prevented from timely filing his § 2254 petition on account of exceptional circumstances that were out of his control or

because he was affirmatively misled, see Felder v. Johnson, 204

F.3d 168, 170-71 (5th Cir. 2000); Davis v. Johnson, 158 F.3d 806,

811 (5th Cir. 1998). Consequently, he has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in determining that he was not

entitled to equitable tolling. See Larry v. Dretke, 361 F.3d 890,

897 (5th Cir. 2004). The judgment is AFFIRMED.
700 P.2d 75

#### STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Sean MATTHEWS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15093.

Court of Appeals of Idaho.

April 16, 1985.

*454Alan E. Trimming and August H. Cahill, Jr. (argued), Ada County Public Defender’s Office, Boise, for defendant-appellant.

Jim Jones, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Sol. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.

WALTERS, Chief Judge.

This is a companion case to *State v. Anderson,*108 Idaho 454, 700 P.2d 76 (1985) and *State v. McKeown,*108 Idaho 452, 700 P.2d 74 (1985) which we have also decided today. Sean Matthews, along with Anderson, McKeown and two others, were charged with first degree murder in connection with the death of Christopher Peterman. Matthews was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and, after a sentencing hearing, was sentenced to the Idaho State Correctional Institute for an indeterminate life sentence. He asserts on appeal that the charge against him should have been transferred to juvenile court or dismissed. We affirm.

Matthews’ argument is the same as that raised by Anderson and McKeown. Matthews contends constitutional rights of due process and equal protection are infringed by I.C. § 16-1806A, a section of the Youth Rehabilitation Act (YRA) that excludes certain crimes, including murder, from YRA jurisdiction. Matthews also asserts that section 16-1806A conflicts with I.C. § 16-1804, another YRA provision that would place jurisdiction of the charge in juvenile court, and that I.C. § 16-1804 should control the jurisdiction issue. We held in *State v. Anderson, supra,*that I.C. § 16-1806A does not infringe constitutional rights of due process and equal protection. Pursuant to section 16-1806A, prosecution of Matthews proceeded from the outset as if he were an adult. He acquired no expectation, from legislation or state conduct furthering prosecution of the crime, that he would be charged in juvenile court. We hold that Matthews’ constitutional rights were not infringed when he was charged as an adult. Nor do we find, as discussed in *State v. Anderson, supra,*an irreconcilable conflict between section 16-1806A and other provisions of the YRA.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

SWANSTROM, J., concurs.

BURNETT, J., concurs in the result.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16140]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR00-17-000]


Transok, LLC; Notice of Petition for Rate Approval

June 21, 2000.
    Take notice that on June 15, 2000, Transok, LLC (``Transok'') filed 
a petition for rate approval to establish rates for interruptible 
Section 311 transportation services on Transok's Palo Duro System. 
Transok asks that the rates become effective July 1, 2000.
    Pursuant to Section 284.123(b)(2)(ii) of the Commission's 
regulations, if the Commission does not act within 150 days of the 
filing date, the rates will be deemed to be fair and equitable and not 
in excess of an amount which interstate pipelines would be permitted to 
charge for similar transportation service. The Commission may, prior to 
the expiration of the 150 day period, extend the time for action or 
institute a proceeding to afford parties an opportunity for written 
comments and for the oral presentations of views, data and arguments.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of practice 
and procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All motions must be filed 
with the Secretary of the Commission on or before July 5, 2000. This 
petition for rate approval is on file with the Commission and is 
available for public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the web 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16140 Filed 6-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
August 26 , 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DONNIE PURISO HOUSTO N , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00575

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the motion of the appellant to withdraw notice of appeal. Having considered the motion the Court orders the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order the mandate be issued immediately. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
William F. McDonough

Attorney at Law, LLC

35888 Center Ridge Road, Unit 3

North Ridgeville, OH 44039

Phone: (440) 327-1542

Email: "I'ricou ntytaw$hto(dgmail. c{}tyr

Fax (440) 327-1225

Website: www.elronelaw. urs

October 22,2015

U. S. Deparl.ment of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washingtor; DC 20590

RE: Myrealtor Group, LLC

333 Exemption Petition

Dear Sir or Madam:

Attached please find Myrealtor Group, LLC's request for an exemption from the listed Federal

Aviation Regulations to allow commercial operation of its Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

("sUASs") for aerial/video photography for real estate marketing pu{poses. This exemption

request is exclusively for the use of the UAS Phantom 3 Professional Model, manufactured by

DJI Innoval;ions, a Hong Kong based company.

Also attached to this coruespondence is the DJI Phantom 3 Professional User Manual (hereinafter

"Manual"), which outlines the operating requirements, limitations, and technical specifications

for the DJI Phantom 3 Professional System. Myrealtor Group, LLC has reviewed this Manual

and has found it to be acceptable for sUAS aerial photography operations.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Please contact the undersigned should

you have arry questions or concerns.

Yours truly,

Counsel for Myrealtor Group, LLC

WFM:maf

Enclosures
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 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

                    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which                           ( print page 40674)                        would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.                

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         July 17, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         3 pm to 5 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Nancy B. Saunders, PHD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, NIAID, NIH, Room 2217, 6700-B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7610, Bethesda, MD 20892-7610, 301 496-2550, ns120v@nih.gov.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 21, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-16616  Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
No. 10-11156.

#### Nelson *v.*Virginia.

Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Annual Report of Daou Systems,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Vincent K. Roach, Chief Executive Officer and President 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:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Vincent K. Roach                 
|Vincent K. Roach                     
|Chief Executive Officer and President
|March 30, 2005
# Comments on: 22-1038: INTEL CORPORATION v. PACT XPP SCHWEIZ AG [OPINION], Nonprecedential
SFO 

San Francisco International Airport 

March 4, 2010 

P.O. Box 8097 

San Francisco, CA 94128 

Tel 650.821.5000 

Fax 650.821.5005 

www.flysfo.com 

ArRPORT 

COMMISSION 

CITY AND COUNTV 

OF SAN FRANCISCO 

GAVIN NEVVSOM 

MWO H 

LARRY MAZZOLA 

P«fS/DE^T 

LINDA S. CRAYTON 

V i a PRESIDENT 

CARYL ITO 

ELEANOR JOHNS 

RICHARD J. auGGENHIME 

JOHN L. MARTIN 

AmPORT DIRECTOR 

The Honorable Raymond H. LaHood 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Docket DOT-OST-2010-0034 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

On behalf of the San Francisco International Airport, I write in support of the 

Department of Transportation's expeditious consideration of the pending American 

Airlines/Japan Airlines application for antitrust immunity and proposed joint 

business agreement, pursuant to the same standards applied by DOT to other alliance 

applications by U.S. airlines. 

Worldwide alliances, such as oneworld, have proven beneficial for the 

aviation industry and for passengers. Airlines secure marketing and operational 

efficiencies, airports obtain more efficient use of facilities, and passengers stand to 

benefit through lower fares and more seamless global airlines connections. Increased 

alliance competition will in turn enhance the benefits of the Department's Open 

Skies policy - first by solidifying U.S. - Japan Open Skies, then by serving as a 

foundation for further liberalization across Asia. 

DOT has in the past supported global airline alliances that enhance consumer 

welfare and competition. In the interest of our region's traveling public and in the 

interest of a competitive global marketplace for air travel, we urge the Department to 

act as promptly as possible on the American Airlines/Japan Airlines request. 

Very truly yours, 

A r^ ' 1 \h 

JohVL. Martin 

Airport Director 

P.O. Box 8097 

SanFrancisco,CA. 94128 

John.Martin@t1ysfo.com
No. 10-11020.

#### Upson *v.*Wallace.

Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.