alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Miami Division

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

IN RE:

The Alpha House, Inc. Chapter 11

CASE NO.: 21-12338 RAM

________________________________/

M Group Hotels, Inc.

 a Florida corporation 

Debtor-in-possession.

Chapter 11

CASE: 21-13977 RAM

________________________________/

EX PARTE ORDER JOINTLY ADMINISTERING CHAPTER 11 CASES

This matter came before the court

O ex parte or;

G at a hearing on ____________________

on a motion filed pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 1015 and Local Rule 1015-1(A)(2). 

The cases identified in the caption of this order are pending in this court by or against (1) a

husband and wife, or (2) a partnership and one or more of its general partners, or (3) two or more

Robert A. Mark, Judge

_____________________________________________________________________________ United States Bankruptcy Court

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on April 27, 2021.

Case 21-13977-RAM Doc 12 Filed 04/28/21 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.: 21-12338 RAM

Page 2

general members of a partnership, or (4) a debtor and an affiliate. It appears that these cases should

be jointly administered as authorized under Bankruptcy Rule 1015 and Local Rule 1015-1.

Accordingly it is

ORDERED that:

1. These cases shall be jointly administered. 

2. A single case docket and court file will be maintained hereafter under the "lead case" number.

3. Pleadings filed in other than the lead case shall be captioned under the lead case name(s) and

case number followed by the words "(Jointly Administered)" and beneath that caption, the case

names and numbers for the cases in which the document is being filed. Claims filed shall indicate

only the case name and number of the case in which the claim is asserted. Separate claims registers

shall be maintained for each case. Ballots shall be styled and filed only in the case name and number

of the member case for which the plan being voted on was filed.

4. The debtor-in-possession, or if applicable, trustee, will not commingle assets or liabilities

unless and until it is determined, after notice and hearing, that these cases involve the same debtor

or that another ground exists to order substantive consolidation of these cases.

### 

Submitted by:

Robert C. Meyer, P.A.

2223 Coral Way

Miami, Florida 33145-3508

305.285.8838

305.285.8919 fax

meyerrobertc@cs.com

Y:\Clients\13039\BKC\O'Consolidate.wpd

Case 21-13977-RAM Doc 12 Filed 04/28/21 Page 2 of 2
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

February 26, 2015 

Mr. David Stape 

Manager, Regulatory Compliance 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

Post Office Box 20706 

Atlanta, GA 30320-6000 I 

Dear Mr. Stape: 

Exemption No. 60341 

800 Independence Ave .. S W 

Washinglon. 0 C. 20591 

Regulatory Docket No. F AA-2000-8428 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 6034, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated February 2, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta) for an extension of Exemption No. 6034, as 

amended. That exemption from§§ 121.317(a) and 25.79l(a) ofTitle 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations ( 14 CFR) allows Delta to operate its McDonnell Douglas MD-90 aircraft with 

"No Smoking" signs that are always illuminated, provided Delta operates those aircraft in a 

manner that continues to prohibit smoking on board the affected aircraft at all times. 

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

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of Exemption 6034, as amended, 

would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to 

Delta. 

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 6034, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this extension and is in the public interest. Therefore, 

under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 1 06(t), 40113 and 44701 ; which the FAA 

AFS-15-507-E 
Administrator has delegated to me, Delta Airlines, Inc. is granted an extension to its 

exemption from §§ 121.317(a) and 25.791 (a) that allows Delta to operate its McDonnell 

Douglas MD-90 aircraft with "No Smoking" signs that are always illuminated, provided Delta 

operates those aircraft in a manner that continues to prohibit smoking on board the affected 

aircraft at all times. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 6034, as amended, to 

February 28, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. ' 

Sincerely, 

John Barbagallo 

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service 

2
CERTIFICATIONS Pursuant to Section 302
  I, Dan Sifford certify that:
  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of First Auto, Inc. ;
  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report;
 
 4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;
 b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
 c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
  5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
  6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
  
 Date: July 15, 2003
 /s/Dan Sifford
 Dan Sifford
 Sole Officer / Director
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50010

Summary Calendar

 

EDDIE HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NATHAN, Doctor; LEN O. KERR, JR., Doctor,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-96-CV-189

- - - - - - - - - -

December 15, 1997

Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eddie Hernandez (#702949) has moved for appointment of

counsel. Hernandez has failed to show that exceptional

circumstances require appointment of counsel. See Ulmer v.

Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). The motion is

DENIED.

Hernandez has moved this court for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal. Under the circumstances of this case, we

construe the motion as an appeal from the district court’s order
No. 97-50010

-2-

certifying that this appeal was not taken in good faith. See

Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Hernandez

contends that the district court improperly resolved disputed

issues of fact and failed to provide him with an opportunity to

develop his allegations in dismissing his complaint for failure

to state a claim and as legally frivolous. The complaint,

however, alleged no more than disagreement with Hernandez’

medical treatment. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). 

The district court did not err in certifying that this appeal was

not taken in good faith. The motion for leave to proceed IFP on

appeal is DENIED.

Because Hernandez’ appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th

Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Hernandez that any additional frivolous

appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To

avoid sanctions, Hernandez is further cautioned to review any

pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that

are frivolous. 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; IFP DENIED; APPEAL

DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly report of GeoPharma, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended November 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Carol Dore-Falcone, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(3) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

(4) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Carol Dore-FalconeCarol Dore-Falcone Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer November 14, 2006




29
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00165-CV

IN RE VIA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice 

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 24, 2013

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On March 7, 2013, Relator Via Metropolitan Transit Authority filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus. The court has considered the petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion 

that Relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is 

DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2007-CI-01034, Candelario McGraw v. Alfred S. Longoria and Via 

Metropolitan Transit Authority, pending in the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable 

Michael Mery presiding. However, the order complained of was signed by the Honorable John D. Gabriel, 

presiding judge of the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5573 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to shorten the exclusivity period 

for brand name biological products from 12 to 7 years. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 23, 2016 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY (for herself, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. DOGGETT, and Mr. WELCH) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to shorten the 

exclusivity period for brand name biological products 

from 12 to 7 years. 

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 ‘‘Price Relief, Innova5 tion, and Competition for Essential Drugs Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘PRICED Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5573 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSIVITY PERIOD FOR BRAND NAME BIOLOGI2 CAL PRODUCTS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 351(k)(7)(A) of the Pub4 lic Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(k)(7)(A)) is amend5 ed by striking ‘‘12 years’’ and inserting ‘‘7 years’’. 

6 (b) CONFORMING CHANGES.—Paragraphs (2)(A) and 

7 (3)(A) of section 351(m) of the Public Health Service Act 

8 (42 U.S.C. 262(m)) is amended by striking ‘‘12 years’’ 

9 each place it appears and inserting ‘‘7 years’’. 

10 (c) APPLICABILITY.—This Act and the amendments 

11 made by this Act apply only with respect to a biological 

12 product for which the reference product (as such term is 

13 used in section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

14 U.S.C. 262)) is licensed under subsection (a) of such sec15 tion on or after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 Quarterly Report of Spectre Industries, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ian S. Grant, the President and Chief Executive Officer 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 to my knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

Ian. S. Grant

/s/ Ian S. Grant

President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)

June 19, 2003
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5609 

To prohibit any appropriation of funds to the Saint Lawrence Seaway 

Development Corporation, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 28, 2016 

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To prohibit any appropriation of funds to the Saint Lawrence 

Seaway Development Corporation, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FUNDING PROHIBITION. 

4 No funds are authorized to be appropriated for the 

5 programs, activities, or expenses of the Saint Lawrence 

6 Seaway Development Corporation, as created by section 

7 1 of the Act of May 13, 1954 (68 Stat. 93, chapter 201; 

8 33 U.S.C. 981). 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 50921 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
THOMAS LOPEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:13

- CR

- 625

- 1

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Thomas Lopez pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, and he was sentenced to 240 months in prison. On appeal , Lopez contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to continue sentencing so as to allow him additional time to debrief.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 14, 2014

Lyle W. Cay ce Clerk Case: 13-50921 Document: 00512802058 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/14/2014No. 13

- 50921

We review the denial of a continuance for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Stalnaker , 571 F.3d 428, 439 (5th Cir. 2009). Lopez must demonstrate that the denial “resulted in specific and compelling or serious prejudice.” United States v. Barnett , 197 F.3d 138, 144 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We will uphol d the district court’s decision, even if it was harsh, as long as it was not arbitrary or unreasonable. See Stalnaker , 571 F.3d at 439. Lopez has failed to show that the denial of the continuance was arbitrary
or unreasonable. See id . In denying the co ntinuance, the district court voiced its concern why efforts to debrief had been unsuccessful and was apparently unmoved by the proffered reason, to wit, the agent’s availability and trying to coordinate the parties’ schedules. The court further suggested that a continuance was unnecessary because it could “revisit” any sentence reduction upon the appropriate motion from the Government. Lopez’s assertion that he was prejudiced because it is likely that he would have a received a lesser sentence is unsup ported and speculative. And, as pointed out by the Government, Lopez’s assertion of a lesser sentence is refuted by the fact that during the two months following his plea, Lopez provided no cooperation. Further, as noted by the district court, whether th e continuance was granted or not, it could consider any sentence reduction upon a proper motion by the Government. In short, Lopez has not alleged, much less demonstrated, that he suffered “specific and compelling or serious prejudice” from the denial of the continuance. Barnett , 197 F.3d at 144. The judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-50921 Document: 00512802058 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/14/2014
STATE of Louisiana v. Christopher WILLIAMS

NO. 2018-KH-1191

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 28, 2018

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Chesapeake Bay

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - science_science(194)
              - products_data(114)
              - products_maps(6)
              - products_publications(708)
              - products_software(2)
              - products_web_tools(5)
              - multimedia_audio(11)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(6)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(5)
              - multimedia_image(98)
              - multimedia_image-141770(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(79)
              - multimedia_image-141772(3)
              - multimedia_image-141775(1)
              - multimedia_image-141776(14)
              - multimedia_slideshow(16)
              - multimedia_video(38)
              - multimedia_video-149194(13)
              - multimedia_video-149195(15)
              - multimedia_video-149225(2)
              - documents_file(6)
              - documents_file-149220(6)
              - news_news-149245(3)
              - news_news-149246(1)
              - news_news-149248(11)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - news_newsletters(25)
              - news_other_news(17)
              - connect_locations(1)
              - connect_social_media(1)
              - (-)connect_staff_profiles(12)
              - other_basic-37(2)
              - other_basic-42(13)

## By Location

              - delaware(6)
              - district of columbia(7)
              - maryland(8)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - virginia(1)

## By Year

              - 2024(9)
              - 2023(1)
              - 2022(2)

staff profileKen Hyer, Ph.D.

staff profilePeter Tango, Ph.D.

staff profileGary Shenk

staff profileDurga Ghosh

staff profileJennifer Marie Olszewski

staff profileLabeeb Ahmed

staff profileTammy Zimmerman

staff profileJeffery Sullivan

staff profileJ. Wright Horton, Jr., Ph.D.

staff profileKyle Hurley

staff profileAndrew Sekellick

staff profileAlexander Soroka
Michael COLLINS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1851

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**EXHIBIT23.1**

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein Registration Statement No. 333-105832 of Georgia Bancshares, Inc. on FormS-8 of our report, dated March 11, 2004, relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements of Georgia Bancshares, Inc. as of December 31, 2004and for the year then ended, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K ofGeorgia Bancshares, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004.

 
|                | /s/ Porter Keadle Moore, LLP |   |
|---------------------|------------------------------|--------|
|                |                         |
|                |                         |
| Atlanta, Georgia    |                         |
| March 29, 2005 |                         |

 

1

----
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_education(5)
              - science_faqs(5)
              - science_science(341)
              - products_data(70)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2978)
              - products_software(4)
              - products_web_tools(7)
              - multimedia_audio(53)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(47)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(6)
              - (-)multimedia_before_after(3)
              - multimedia_image(130)
              - multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(106)
              - multimedia_image-141772(1)
              - multimedia_image-141774(3)
              - multimedia_image-141775(10)
              - multimedia_image-141776(7)
              - multimedia_slideshow(3)
              - multimedia_video(146)
              - multimedia_video-149194(74)
              - multimedia_video-149195(32)
              - multimedia_video-149196(5)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)
              - multimedia_video-149198(6)
              - multimedia_video-149225(6)
              - documents_file(2)
              - documents_file-149206(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - news_news-149245(21)
              - (-)news_news-149246(4)
              - news_news-149248(27)
              - news_news-149249(4)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - news_newsletters(3)
              - news_other_news(31)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(8)

## By Location

              - arizona(1)
              - oregon(1)
              - utah(1)

## By Year

Science Snippet        May 6, 2024        Trout, beavers, drought, and a “precious” frog

Science Snippet        April 12, 2022        History of Lake Powell Written in Sediment

Science Snippet        December 29, 2022        Historic changes in water quality or lake surface elevation and their impact on endangered adult suckers in the Klamath Basin

Science Snippet        July 16, 2020        USGS Scientists are Busy as a Bee

Before/After Image        October 15, 2021        Land-Cover Modeling - Bismarck, North Dakota - A1B Scenario

Before/After Image        October 15, 2021        Land-Cover Modeling - Phoenix, Arizona - B1 Scenario

Before/After Image        October 15, 2021        Land-Cover Modeling - Washington / Baltimore Area - A2 Scenario