alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D 2 0 2 3

- 2885

_____________________________

DDD C ONSTRUCTION & S ITE W ORK

, LLC, a Florida limited liability company

, D ANNY D AVIS

, individually, and T OMMY D AVIS

, individually

,

Petitioner s ,

v.

W ESEMAN D EVELOPMENT

, LLC, a Florida limited liability

company ,

Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Prohibition

— Original Jurisdiction

.

December 6, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.

The Court dismisses the petition for writ of prohibition as facially insufficient.

Additionally, this opinion shall serve as a warning to all of those who practice before this Court against filing cases or case documentation as an emergency unless a true emer gency exists. The warning applies to both counsel and pro se filers. When an2 individual selects the emergency box in the c ourts’ e

- filing system, or titles their filing as an emergency, whether during working hours or after hours and on weekends, an import ant chain of events is triggered which utilizes significant time and judicial resources. First, the Clerk of the Court receives notification of an emergency and must immediately review and formally receive the filing. The Clerk then alerts the director of central staff who also must review the filing and make a determination whether emergent circumstances may exist. If so, or if it is unclear, the director alerts the panel of three judges on call for emergencies. Those three judges must then review the case and filing. The director of central staff or a staff attorney reviews and researches the case creating a case summary for the sitting emergency panel. The emergency panel reviews the summary, the case in its entirety, and the pertinent legal authority bef ore conferencing the case to determine the outcome of the emergency.

If an emergency is filed during working hours, time is expended on the emergency by the judges, the Clerk of the Court, and central staff and away from pending cases. If an emergency is filed after hours or on holidays and weekends, significant family
time is taken from the members of the Court. The Court and its employees remain willing and able to serve the State of Florida and, thus, often work after hours and on holidays and weekends when the need arises, either from an emergency filing or otherwise. The emergency option is not taken lightly by the Court, nor should it be utilized without proper thought and consideration by any counsel or pro se filer. If an individual exh ibits continued improper use of the emergency filing option, this may result in the imposition of sanctions.

L EWIS

, R OBERTS

, and T ANENBAUM

, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or

9.331

.

_____________________________3 Randall Shochet and Doreen Inkeles of Shochet Law Group,
Trenton

, for Petitioner s

.

Kirstin Jurecko Megraw of Scruggs, Carmichael & Wershow, P.A., Gainesville, for Respondent

.
August 29, 2012 

Mr. Gustave Calderon 

IsisCopter, LLC 

878 Hollyhock Court 

Calsbad, CA 92011 

Dear Mr. Calderon: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§§ 21.91 and 91.319 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we 

can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your August 22, 2012, exemption request on behalf of IsisCopter, LLC into the 

public docket (No. FAA-2012-0897), but we are unable to process your request any further. 

The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). 

For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we 

receive this required information from you. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send 
2 

your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the 

exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Ida M. Klepper 

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure 
3 

Project No.: AFS-12-508-E 

Project Officer: _______________ 

ARM-101:KJones:8/24/2012:Doc#34716 

ARM-1/100/101:Program Office AFS-80 

 Statistics: Reject Letter[1].DOC, 390 words 

 Original, 24 Aug 2012 09:36 

 Style Index 7 Excellent for a Legal Document 

 Average Sentence Length 19 Excellent

 Passive Index 0 Excellent

MR GUSTAVE CALDERON 

ISISCOPTER LLC 

878 HOLLYHOCK COURT 

CALSBAD CA 92011
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** WASHI NGTON D.C., 20460
OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION **DP Barcode :**  **392449 PC Code: 108800**  **October 11, 2011 MEMORANDUM**  **SUBJECT:** Drinking W ater A ssessm ent for S
- Metolachlor and its Degradates Ethanesulfonic

Acid (ESA) and Oxanilic Acid (OA) for Cilantro and Beet and Garden Leaves **TO:** Sidney

Jackson , Risk Manager Reviewer Barbara Madden , Risk Manager Registration Division **FROM:** Christopher M. Kop er, Chemist

Environmental Ri sk Branch I Environmental Fate and Effects Division **THRU:** Nancy

Andrews, Branch Chief Sujatha Sankula, L ead Biologist Environmental Risk Branch I Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)
A drinkin g water assessment was requested after a petition was submitted by the Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR
- 4) to establish s - metolachlor tolerances for cilantro and beet and garden leaves. These proposed uses are looking to be added to the Dual Magnum  (EPA Reg. No. 100
- 816 ) label. After further review, the maximum proposed single use rate of 1.27 lb a.i./acre for beet and garden leaves is the same rate as turnip greens previous ly assessed for this chemical. Therefore, please refer to the 22 April 2010 drinking water assessment (D368735) for a summary

of recommended surface and groundwater EDWCs for the human dietary risk assessment for the parent s
- metolachlor and its degradates ESA and OA. If there are any

questions concerning this matter, please contact Chris Koper at 703.347.8065 or koper.christopher@epa.gov
.
**Exhibit 10**

** **

** **

**  **

**Consent of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm**

 

We consent to the use of our reports dated February 20, 2018relating to the consolidated financial statements of New Gold Inc. and subsidiaries (“**New Gold Inc.**”) and theeffectiveness of New Gold Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in this annual report on Form 40-F ofNew Gold Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2017.

 

* *

/s/ Deloitte LLP

Chartered Professional Accountants

Licensed Public Accountants

Toronto, Canada

March 29, 2018
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1204 

To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to permit the District 

of Columbia to establish the rate of pay of the Chief Financial Officer 

of the District of Columbia. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 22, 2021 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to permit 

the District of Columbia to establish the rate of pay 

of the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘District of Columbia 

5 Chief Financial Officer Salary Home Rule Act’’. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1204 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERMITTING DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO ESTAB2 LISH RATE OF PAY OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OF3 FICER OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

4 Section 424(b)(2)(E) of the District of Columbia 

5 Home Rule Act (sec. 1–204.24b(b)(5), D.C. Official Code) 

6 is amended to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘(E) PAY.—The Chief Financial Officer 

8 shall be paid at the greater of— 

9 ‘‘(i) a rate such that the total amount 

10 of compensation paid during any calendar 

11 year is equal to the limit on total pay 

12 which is applicable during the year under 

13 section 5307 of title 5, United States 

14 Code, to an employee described in section 

15 5307(d) of such title; or 

16 ‘‘(ii) a rate established in law by the 

17 District of Columbia, except that any rate 

18 established under this clause which is ap19 plicable to any individual serving as the 

20 Chief Financial Officer shall not be re21 duced during any period of the individual’s 

22 service as Chief Financial Officer.’’. 

Æ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Tyrone A. RAVENELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Cecelia REYNOLDS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-6971

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

*823Tyrone A. Ravenell, Appellant Pro Se. Caroline M. Scrantom, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone A. Ravenell seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ravenell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Allen W. Ross 

Attorney & Counselor at Law 

142 W. 5th Street | Rusk, Texas 75785 (physical) PO Box 528 | Jacksonville, TX 75766 (mailing)

903.683.2454 (voice) ~ 866.576.5317 (fax)

allen@arossatty.com

February 23, 2015 

Certified Mail Receipt 7014 0510 0002 2996 6433

Mr. Justin Christian 

TDCJ-ID #01951215 

Bradshaw State Jail 

P.O. Box 9000 

Henderson, TX 75693 

 RE: Appeal of Probation Revocation 

 Appellate Cause #12-14-00245-CR

 Twelfth Court of Appeals, Tyler, TX 

Dear Mr. Christian: 

Enclosed herewith please find the following documents: 

1. The clerk’s record; and 

2. The reporter’s record. 

Sincerely, 

ALLEN W. ROSS 

Enc. 

cc: Twelfth Court of Appeals (without enclosures) 

ACCEPTED

12-14-00245-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

2/23/2015 11:58:19 AM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 2/23/2015 11:58:19 AM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
April27, 2012 Mr. Dennis DeVany The City ofHernando 475 West Commerce Street Hernando, Mississippi 38632 662.429.9092/662.429.9099

www.c jtyofherJlando.org

Chief, EAS & Domestic Analysis Division Office ofAviation**DeprunnentofT~portation** 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 Re: Tupelo Regional Airport (TUP) Docket DOT-OST-2009-0305 DearMr. DeVany, 

### '{ - l

I am writing in support of Silver Airways' proposal to provide commercial air service to the Tupelo Regional Airport. Citizens from Hernando depend on the Tupelo Regional Airport for their air service. Itis very important to ourlocal economy for air service to continue in and out of Tupelo. We believe Silver Airways' interline ticketing and baggage agreements with Delta Airlines make this option very attractive to our citizens. In addition the 30 to 50 seat aircraft are much more desirable than the 8 seat aircraft offered by Air Choice One. We are excited about this chance to return to profitability. Thank you for considering our citizens in your deliberations.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of RecycleNet and subsidiaries, (the Company) on 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Paul Roszel President, and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.





|March 19, 2004 | /s/ Paul Roszel                   
|-------------- | ----------------------------------
|               | Paul Roszel                       
|               | President, Chief Executive Officer
Joseph TAYLOR Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5322

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 9, 2018 Rehearing Denied March 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Charles J. Deisbeck, Chief Executive Officer of Breda Telephone Corp., certify that to my knowledge (i) Breda Telephone Corp.'s Amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Breda Telephone Corp.





Date: May 28, 2010





/s/ Charles J. DeisbeckCharles J. Deisbeck, Chief Executive Officer




E-3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fareed BAREFIELD, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-20003 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 27, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Fareed Barefield, Pro Se

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Fareed Barefield has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Barefield has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant parts of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,: counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.13
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This Amendment to Employment Agreement ("Amendment") amends the Employment Agreement (the "Agreement" ), entered into as of March 17, 2010 (the "Agreement " ), by and between DaVita Inc. (now called DaVita HealthCare Partners Inc. and referred to in this Amendment " Employer") and Javier Rodriguez ("Employee").  Specifically, effective December 31, 2014, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:


1.    A new Section 2.8 is hereby added to the Agreement as follows:


"Possible Recoupment of Certain Compensation. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement to the contrary, Employee shall be subject to the written policies of the Board of Directors as well as laws and regulations applicable to executives of the Employer, including without limitation the DaVita HealthCare Partners Inc. Incentive Compensation Clawback Policy approved by the Board of Directors on December 4, 2014 and rules adopted pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, and any other Board policy, law or regulation relating to recoupment or "clawback" of compensation that may exist from time to time during the Employee's employment by the Employer and thereafter."


In all other respects, and with the exception of any all previous amendments, the Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and effect.


EMPLOYER / DAVITA HEALTHCARE             EMPLOYEE/
PARTNERS INC.




By /s/ Laura Mildenberger                /s/ Javier Rodriguez                
Laura Mildenberger                    Javier Rodriguez
Chief People Officer






Approved as to Form






/s/ Michael Freimann                
Michael A. Freimann
Assistant General Counsel – Labor & Employment
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130599(33) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 130599 

 COA: 266178 

Kent CC: 02-005771-FH 

JESUS JUVENCIO QUINTANILLA,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 23, 2008 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.

 KELLY, J., would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would grant leave 

to appeal for the reasons set forth in her dissenting statement in People v Houlihan, 480 

Mich 1165 (2008). 

d0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1704

_____________________________ C LIFTON R. B AXTER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court fo r Alachua County

. Mark W. Moseley , Judge

. July 27, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B ILBREY , W INOKUR , and J AY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Clifton R. Baxter, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

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

I, Thomas E. Mara, as Chief Executive Officer of The FINOVA Group Inc. (the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|(1) | the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |     |  |                                       
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------
|Date: August 13, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/    Thomas E. Mara                 
|                      |  |     |  | Thomas E. Mara Chief Executive Officer