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

/

In re:

EFRAIN OSES

AKA: EFRAIN OSES LOPEZ

CASE NO.: 20-16594-LMI

CHAPTER: 13

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

OBJECTION TO CONFIRMATION OF CHAPTER 13 PLAN

Creditor, Freedom Truck Finance, LLC, objects to confirmation of the Debtor's Chapter 13 Plan

and states:

1. Creditor is the lienholder on the title to the following vehicle:

2011 FREIGHTLINER Cascadia CA125SLP

VIN: 1FUJGLDRXBLAT6365 (“Vehicle”)

2. Creditor filed Proof of Claim Number 3 in the total amount of $34,329.65.

3. Debtor's Chapter 13 Plan proposes to value Creditor's secured claim on the Vehicle to

$15,889.14, pursuant to Section 506 of the Bankruptcy Code.

4. Creditor believes the replacement value of the Vehicle is higher than stated in the Plan,

specifically $42,828.83, pursuant to the N.A.D.A. Official Used Car Guide attached hereto as Exhibit

"A" and the court's reasoning in In re Hauser, 405 BR 684 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2009) (Olson, J.) and In re

Ortiz, 2007 WL 1176019 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2007) (Ray, J.).

5. Notwithstanding the above, if an agreement cannot be reached amicably between the parties

as to the value of the Vehicle, Creditor will conduct an appraisal of the Vehicle prior to an evidentiary

hearing on the appropriate motion.

Case 20-16594-LMI Doc 17 Filed 07/07/20 Page 1 of 2
WHEREFORE, Creditor, respectfully requests the Court to sustain this Objection and for such

other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

/s/ Gavin N. Stewart, Esq.

Gavin N. Stewart, Esq.

FL Bar No.: 52899

P.O. Box 5703

Clearwater, FL 33758

Telephone: (727) 565-2653

Fax: (727) 213-9022

bk@stewartlegalgroup.com

Counsel for Creditor

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by CM/ECF notice and

regular mail this 7

th day of July 2020.

/s/ Gavin N. Stewart, Esq.

Gavin N. Stewart, Esq.

VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL

Efrain Oses

6125 West 20 Avenue #311

Hialeah, FL 33012

VIA CM/ECF NOTICE

Robert Sanchez, Esq

355 W 49 St.

Hialeah, FL 33012

Nancy K. Neidich

POB 279806

Miramar, FL 33027

Office of the US Trustee

51 S.W. 1st Ave.,

Suite 1204

Miami, FL 33130

Case 20-16594-LMI Doc 17 Filed 07/07/20 Page 2 of 2
AAM-11-390-E 

September 7, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10353 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0761 

Ms. Shelli Oliver 

Freedom Aviation 

310 Hangar Road 

Lynchburg, VA 24502 

Dear Ms. Oliver: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated July 26, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Freedom Aviation for an exemption from part 120. That exemption, if granted, 

would allow Freedom Aviation, which is operating under separate parts of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR), to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing 

program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Freedom Aviation. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one 

would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 
2 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Freedom Aviation an exemption from part 120 to the 

extent necessary to allow Freedom Aviation, which is operating under separate parts of the 

regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the 

conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Freedom Aviation are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all 

times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the 

Freedom Aviation part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on September 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 28124]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X02-90503]



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

Part II--Continued





Department of Justice





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



Antitrust Division



United States v. Microsoft Corporation; Public Comments; Notice

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 86/Friday, 
May 3, 2002/Notices

[[Page 28124]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
<page>			  EXHIBIT 31.01

CERTIFICATIONS


I, Jeffrey A. Rothman, President of Demeter Management Corporation
("Demeter"), the general partner of the registrant, certify that:

1.		I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the
registrant;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;

b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting; and



<page>
5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of Demeter's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role
in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.





Date:  November 15, 2004     /s/	Jeffrey A. Rothman
                           	     Jeffrey A. Rothman
                                President,
                                Demeter Management Corporation,
                                general partner of the registrant
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**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 inVentiv Health, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-K for the annual period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John R.
      Emery, Chief Financial Officer of inVentiv, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002 and to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:




(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and




(2)  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of inVentiv.




February
              28, 2007
            By:
            /s/ JOHN
              R.
              EMERYJohn
              R. EmeryChief
              Financial Officer






A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      inVentiv Health, Inc. and will be retained by inVentiv Health, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
Form CGFCRD3V (3/12/2021)

United States Bankruptcy Court

 Southern District of Florida

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

Case Number: 21−11549−RAM

Chapter: 11

In re:

CSC Enterprises, Inc. DBA Scully's Tavern

9809 SW 72nd St

Miami, FL 33173

EIN: 65−0051546

RENOTICE OF HEARING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a hearing will be held before the Honorable Robert A Mark to consider the

following:

[18] Motion for Relief from Stay 9809 SW 72 Street, Space # 1, Miami, FL Filed by Creditor Equity

One(Florida Portfolio), LLC

1. This matter has been set on the Court's motion calendar for a non−evidentiary hearing. The allotted

time for this matter is ten minutes. The hearing will be held:

Date: April 21, 2021

Time: 11:00 AM

Location: Video Conference by Zoom for Government

2. The hearing scheduled by this notice will take place only by video conference. DO NOT GO TO THE

COURTHOUSE. Attorneys must advise their clients not to appear at the courthouse. Although

conducted by video conference, the hearing is a court proceeding. The formalities of the courtroom

must be observed. All participants must dress appropriately, exercise civility, and otherwise conduct

themselves in a manner consistent with the dignity of the Court.

3. To participate in the hearing, you must register in advance no later than 3:00 p.m., one business day

before the date of the hearing. To register, CLICK HERE or manually enter the following registration

link in a browser:

https://www.zoomgov.com/meeting/register/vJItde−vqzIvHxefAoOmZvlN2Yn7N02pxwE

4. The movant, or movant's counsel if represented by an attorney, must:

(a) serve a copy of this notice of hearing and, unless previously served, the above−described

document(s) on all required parties within the time frame required by the Federal Rules of

Bankruptcy Procedure, the local rules of this Court, and orders of the Court, and

(b) file a certificate of service as required under Local Rules 2002−1(F) and 9073−1(B).

Any party who fails to properly serve any pleading or other paper may be denied the opportunity to be

heard thereon.

5. PLEASE NOTE: No person may record the proceedings from any location by any means. The audio

recording maintained by the Court will be the sole basis for creation of a transcript that constitutes the

official record of the hearing.

Dated: 4/15/21 CLERK OF COURT

By: Jacqueline Antillon

Courtroom Deputy

Case 21-11549-RAM Doc 39 Filed 04/15/21 Page 1 of 1
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Two-Dimensional Flood-Inundation Model of the Flint River at Albany, Georgia      

      August 14, 2007    

Potential flow characteristics of future flooding along a 4.8-mile reach of the Flint River in Albany, Georgia, were simulated using recent digital-elevation-model data and the U.S. Geological Survey finite-element surface-water modeling system for two-dimensional flow in the horizontal plane (FESWMS-2DH). Simulated inundated areas, in 1-foot (ft) increments, were created for water-surface altitudes at the Flint River at Albany streamgage (02352500) from 192.5-ft altitude with a flow of 123,000 cubic feet per second (ft3/s) to 179.5-ft altitude with a flow of 52,500 ft3/s. The model was calibrated to match actual floods during July 1994 and March 2005 and Federal Emergency Management Administration floodplain maps. Continuity checks of selected stream profiles indicate the area near the Oakridge Drive bridge had lower velocities than other areas of the Flint River, which contributed to a rise in the flood-surface profile. The modeled inundated areas were mapped onto monochrome orthophoto imagery for use in planning for future floods. As part of a cooperative effort, the U.S. Geological Survey, the City of Albany, and Dougherty County, Georgia, conducted this study.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Jonathan W Musser

##### Hydrologist

South Atlantic Water Science Center (SAWSC)

jwmusser@usgs.gov

## Related Content

#### Jonathan W Musser

##### Hydrologist

South Atlantic Water Science Center (SAWSC)

jwmusser@usgs.gov

### Study Area

### Contact

####             Water Resources Mission Area - Headquarters        

USGS Headquarters12201 Sunrise Valley DriveReston, VA20192United States

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - Flint River
                  - Georgia

View All **
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           VENTANA WILDERNESS, CALIFORNIA.      

      January 1, 1984    

A mineral survey of the Ventana Primitive Area (now the Ventana Wilderness) in California was made. On the basis of known mineral occurrences and geologic and geochemical studies, this part of the Coast Ranges of central California contains little evidence for the existence of mineral resources. Small bodies of good quality marble are scattered through parts of the wilderness. Because of their small size these marble occurrences are not considered as having resource potential. Detailed mapping and sampling of the sulfide-bearing gneiss and schist will be needed to determine the grade and extent of these rocks and the possibility that they, in fact, could represent significant resources. The numerous thermal springs in and near the area suggest a high geothermal gradient and that geothermal-energy resources should be investigated.

## Citation Information
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4880 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4880

 To prohibit any regulation, rule, guidance, recommendation, or policy 
 issued after May 15, 2015, that limits the sale or donation of excess 
property of the Federal Government to State and local agencies for law 
            enforcement activities, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 23, 2016

Mr. Ratcliffe (for himself, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Olson, Mr. Farenthold, 
 Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. 
Calvert, Mr. Hurt of Virginia, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Barr, and 
 Mr. Meadows) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Armed 
Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit any regulation, rule, guidance, recommendation, or policy 
 issued after May 15, 2015, that limits the sale or donation of excess 
property of the Federal Government to State and local agencies for law 
            enforcement activities, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Protecting Lives Using Surplus 
Equipment Act of 2016''.

SEC. 2. GENERAL PROHIBITION.

    No regulation, rule, guidance, recommendation, or policy issued 
after May 15, 2015, that limits the sale or donation of excess property 
of the Federal Government, including excess property of the Department 
of Defense, to State and local agencies for law enforcement activities 
(whether pursuant to section 2576a of title 10, United States Code, or 
any other provision of law, or as a condition on the use of Federal 
funds) shall have any force or effect unless enacted into law by 
Congress.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON FEDERAL FUNDS.

    No agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government may use any 
Federal funds, fees, or resources to implement such regulation, rule, 
guidance, recommendation, or policy.

SEC. 4. RETURN OR REISSUE OF EQUIPMENT RECALLED OR SEIZED.

    Any property recalled or seized on or after May 15, 2015, pursuant 
to a regulation, rule, guidance, recommendation, or policy described in 
section 1 shall be returned, replaced, or re-issued to the State or 
local agency from which it was recalled or seized, at no cost to such 
agency, as soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
M.J.F., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D15-5561

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 07, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
April 11, 2013

United States ofAmerica Department ofTransportation Office ofthe Secretary Washington, D.C. 20590 

### Samuel V. Weidner, Sr. 1585 Hanover Road Lewistown, Montana 59457 sweidner@mt.net

Re: Orderto Show Cause ProposingTermination of Essential AirService Eligibilityat Lewistown Montana To Whom It May Concern, Iam a retired businessman, who presently serves on two ofthe most important boards in Lewistown, Montana-the Lewistown Municipal Airport Board and the Fergus County PortAuthority Board. Both of these Boards deal with two issues critical to Lewistown's future. The first being economic development/business preservation. The second issue is to maintain public transportation critical to our Community's needs in rural Montana. Itwas previously understood that EAS required the same carrierforall Montana EAS cities. Our Community is now being told thatthere may be an option for Lewistown to have service to adifferent destination than other Montana EAS cities. Based upon the history of Lewistown airtravel, this should make it possible for Lewistown to maintain its EAS eligibility ifLewistown can change its destination city to Denver. Specifically, when our EAS air providerflewto Denver in 2009 and 2010, the passenger numbers were approximately double the numbers, compared with years (such as presently}, when Denver is nota destination from Lewistown. Our Community needs service to a major hub, such as Denver, which is clearly shown in the numbers provided above. We are hopeful thatthe DOTwill consider allowing Montana EAS cities to have separate bid proposals, and permit Lewistown to go through atrial period to reestablish its EAS eligibility. Very trulyyours,

Samuel V. Weidner, Sr.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 1997)]
[Corrections]
[Page 6619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X97-50212]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 60

[ND7-1-6882a; FRL-5618-8]


Clean Air Act Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation 
Plan for North Dakota; Revisions to the Air Pollution Control Rules; 
Delegation of Authority for Colorado Standards of Performance for New 
Stationary Sources

Correction

    In rule document 96-25469, beginning on page 52865, in the issue of 
Tuesday, October 8, 1996, make the following correction:


Sec. 60.49 [Corrected]

     In Sec. 60.49, in the table ``Delegation Status of New Source 
Performance Standards'', beginning on page 52869, the following 
subparts are corrected to read as follows:

                              Delegation Status of New Source Performance Standards                             
                                            [(NSPS) for Region VIII]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Subpart                         CO       MT\1\      ND\1\      SD\1\      UT\1\        WY   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
Dc--Industrial-Commercial--Institutional Steam                                                                  
 Generators...................................        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)           
                                                                                                                
G--Nitric Acid Plants.........................        (*)        (*)        (*)                   (*)        (*)
H--Sulfuric Acid Plants.......................        (*)        (*)        (*)                   (*)        (*)
                                                                                                                
J--Petroleum Refineries.......................        (*)        (*)        (*)                   (*)        (*)
                                                                                                                
L--Secondary Lead Smelters....................        (*)        (*)        (*)                   (*)        (*)
M--Secondary Brass & Bronze Production Plants.        (*)        (*)        (*)                   (*)        (*)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 184 (Tuesday, September 23, 1997)]
[Corrections]
[Page 49726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X97-30923]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

Correction

    In notice document 97-22570 appearing on page 45274, in the issue 
of Tuesday, August 26, 1997, the heading is corrected to read as set 
forth above.
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D