alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

_________________________________

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant

vs.

JUSTIN EDWARD VITALO,

Respondent.

_________________________________

Docket Number 2023-0423

Enforcement Activity No. 7819132

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: January 25, 2024

By Administrative Law Judge: Honorable Timothy G. Stueve

Appearances:

CWO Hector Melendez

Sector St. Petersburg

For the Coast Guard

Justin Edward Vitalo, Pro Se

For Respondent
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On or about January 9, 2024, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of 

Settlement Agreement and Entry of Consent Order to be approved as a settlement of the case 

under 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and 

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED, the Settlement Agreement is 

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute 

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and dated January 25, 2024, at

Alameda, California

 

_____________________

Honorable Timothy G. Stueve

Administrative Law Judge

U.S. Coast Guard
1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

MILBURN ALEXANDER BUCKLER III, 

Respondent. 

_________________________________ 

Docket Number 2023-0373 

CG Enforcement Activity Number 7793835 

CONSENT ORDER 

Issued: January 22, 2024 

By: Honorable George J. Jordan, Administrative Law Judge 

Appearances: 

LT Daniel J. Massey 

Sector Maryland 

For the Coast Guard 

Milburn Alexander Buckler III, Pro se

For the Respondent 
2 

CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

 On December 30, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of 

Settlement Agreement and Entry of Consent Order to be approved as a settlement of the case 

under 33 C.F.R. § 20.502. 

 I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and 

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. § 20.502. 

ORDER 

 Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED, the Settlement Agreement is 

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute 

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding. 

SO ORDERED. 

Done and dated January 22, 2024, 

Seattle, Washington 

______________________________ 

George J. Jordan

Administrative Law Judge 

United States Coast Guard
Exhibit 32

1350 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and
Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Shirley Singleton, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Edgewater Technology, Inc. (the Company), and Kevin R. Rhodes, the Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of her or his knowledge:

The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2008, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the
period covered by the Periodic Report.



|                     |  |  |  |                                                                              
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 10, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ SHIRLEY SINGLETON                                                        
|                     |  |  |  | Shirley Singleton                                                            
|                     |  |  |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 10, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ KEVIN R. RHODES                                                          
|                     |  |  |  | Kevin R. Rhodes                                                              
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer)
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 28, 2010 

s0621 

Order 

 

June 28, 2010 

140834 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140834 

 COA: 295529 

Wayne CC: 08-002586-FC 

ANTONIO TERELLE MOORER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 29, 2010 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
* 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. 97-30004

Summary Calendar

 

ALEX LEE HUBBARD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SUB SEA INTERNATIONAL; ET AL.,

Defendants,

versus

ROBERT L. HACKETT, 

Movant-Appellant,

versus

DAVID W. OESTREICHER, II,

Movant-Appellee. 

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 91-CV-4022

- - - - - - - - - -

December 26, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert L. Hackett appeals the district court’s order

allocating attorney’s fees among himself, David W. Oestreicher,
No. 97-30004

-2-

II, and John Sullivan, and imposing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 sanctions

against Hackett. Hackett argues that the district court abused

its discretion in allowing Oestreicher to intervene in the

underlying action. The district court did not abuse its

discretion in allowing Oestreicher to intervene in the underlying

action to protect his interest in the contingency fee contract. 

See Gaines v. Dixie Carriers, Inc., 434 F.2d 52, 53 (5th Cir.

1970); Keith v. St. George Packing Co., 806 F.2d 525, 526 (5th

Cir. 1986).

Hackett argues that the district court erred in allocating

the attorney’s fees in the underlying case between himself,

Oestreicher, and Sullivan. Because Hackett did not present any

evidence in the district court regarding the percentage of work

performed by the attorneys before or after the November 15, 1993,

partnership dissolution agreement, the district court did not err

in allocating the attorney’s fees in accordance with the terms of

the dissolution agreement. 

Hackett argues that the district court abused its discretion

in imposing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 sanctions against him. Hackett

failed to comply with the district court’s order to file an

accounting of the fees and costs incurred in the instant case

even after the magistrate judge allowed him an additional ten

days to do so. Therefore, the district court’s order imposing

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 sanctions was well within the district court’s

discretion. See FDIC v. Conner, 20 F.3d 1376, 1380 (5th Cir.
No. 97-30004

-3-

1994).

AFFIRMED.
* 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. 98-20205

______________________________________

MOHAMED BEN MOHAMED ALI ALKHULAQI;

FAIZA KHULAQI,

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

versus

OCEAN SHIPS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CV-2478) 

_____________________________________________

February 17, 1999

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

In this admiralty case, Defendant-Appellant Ocean Ships, Inc.

(“Ocean”) urges us to reverse the results of the bench trial in

which the district court concluded that Ocean’s vessel was

“unseaworthy” for purposes of claims of Plaintiffs-Appellees

(“Alkhulaqi”). The court rejected Alkhulaqi’s Jones Act claim

because he was not acting in the course of his employment at the

time he injured himself by misusing an improperly assembled grinder
2

in the vessel’s machine shop while attempting to improve the

traction of his work boots. The defective nature of the grinding

wheel that had been erroneously affixed to an improperly assembled

grinder by one of Alkhulaqi’s shipmates, however, was held to

constitute unseaworthiness. The court concluded that, even though

Alkhulaqi’s injuries were due in large part — 75% — to his own

negligence, the vessel remained liable for the remainder — 25% — of

the seaman’s final award, including lost wages and future earnings.

In urging reversal, Ocean largely relies on its argument that the

subject grinder — used by Alkhulaqi without knowledge or consent of

the cognizant personnel of the vessel and faultily assembled by

Alkhulaqi’s unauthorized and barely experienced shipmate — was not

employed for its “intended use,” i.e., was used to grind the

synthetic material on the soles of Alkhulaqi’s boots even though

the tool was intended for use only on metal.

Having reviewed the largely undisputed facts in the record,

the rulings of the district court, the applicable law, and the

arguments advanced by counsel in their respective appellate briefs

and in their oral arguments to this court, we are satisfied that

the district court committed no reversible error. Therefore, the

judgment of that court is, in all respects,

AFFIRMED.
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 State

          - [Public Notice 11541]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “Afro-Atlantic Histories” at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, in Houston, Texas; the National Gallery of Art, Washington, District of Columbia; the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles, California; and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made                           ( print page 52543)                        pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000.                

Matthew R. Lussenhop,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2021-20389 Filed 9-20-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
##### 



Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 ACE*COMM.
 By:
    /s/ Steven R. DelmarSteven R. DelmarPrincipal Financial Officer By:
    /s/ James GreenwellJames GreenwellPrincipal Executive Officer
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). LR / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T A U R A S A N T O S - R I V A S , a/k/ aA da M art i nez, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E RJ r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 70651 A ge nc yN o. A 028- 956- 466 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A ura S ant os-R i vas, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f G uat em el a, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of the B oar d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng he rappe a l f r om an i m m i g rat i o n j u d g e’ s d eci si o n d en yi n g h er m o t i o n t o reo p en . O u r j u ri sd i ct i o n i s 

# FI LED JAN 08 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSL R/ Res ea r ch 07- 70651 2 go verned by 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for abu se of di sc re t i on the deni alof a m ot i on t o r e ope n and r e vi e w de novo c l a i m s of c ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i ons i n im m ig r a tio n p r o c e e d in g s . I tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 3 2 1 F .3 d8 8 9 , 8 9 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . W e d e n yin p art an dd is m is s in p art th e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . T he a ge nc ydi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng S ant os - R i va s ’ m ot i on t o re op en as un t i m el y bec ause i tw as fi l ed i n 2 00 6, 18 ye ar s a ft erthe fi nal order of d e p o rta tio n , se e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( m o tio n to r e o p e n m u s t b e f ile dw ith in ni ne tyday s of

f i na l or de rof

de port a t i on orpr i ort o S e pt e m be r30, 1996) , and S an to s - R iv a s f

a ile dto e s tab lis h th a t an yo f th e r e g u la to rye x c e p tio n s ap p ly , se e 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 23( b) ( 4) . I tf ol l ow s tha tthe de ni a l of S ant os - R i va s ’ m ot i on t o r e o p e n d idn o t v io la te du e p r o c e s s . Se e La ta v . I NS , 2 0 4 F .3 d1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( r e q u ir in g e rr o rf o radu e p r o c e s s v io la tio n ) . W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the agency’ s dec i si on no tt o i nv ok e i t s s ua s p o n te au th o r ityto r e o p e n p r o c e e d in g s u n d e r8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( a ) . Se e Ekim ia n v . I NS , 30 3 F . 3d 11 53 , 11 59 (9th C i r. 20 02 ). S ant os - R i va s ’ r e m a i ni ng c ont e nt i ons ar e una va i l i ng. P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
# C_2021464EN.01001501.xml

| 17.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 464/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 464/15

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10460 – DMK / NIESKY / UELZENA / MILCHTROCKNUNG SÜDHANNOVER)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 464/03)

On 4 November 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in German language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10460. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10460. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   11-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                         4,901,131
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6,507,809
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (61,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    4,696,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               15,530,918
<PP&E>                                         415,064
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,433,987
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,836,617
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    336,660
<COMMON>                                       2,655
<OTHER-SE>                                     13,113,762
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,433,987
<SALES>                                        33,140,273
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               33,140,273
<CGS>                                          20,118,824
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             7,250
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,945,318
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,142,577
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,802,741
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,802,741
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .89
        


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven William Roides, Appellant.

Memorandum: In this prosecution for arson and assault, the court properly received evidence of defendant’s prior uncharged crimes and bad acts on the People’s case-in-chief. Evidence of prior uncharged crimes is admissible if it is directly probative of some issue in the case *(People v Ventimiglia,*52 NY2d 350, 359; *People v Vails,*43 NY2d 364, 368). Here, the evidence established that defendant smashed his wife’s car windows; slashed her tires; broke two windows on the house in which she was living; threatened to give her a *968"good beating”, to cut her throat, and to put her and her friends in their graves. Thus, the evidence of defendant’s threats and acts of violence toward his wife in the month preceding the crime was directly probative of his intent to set fire to his wife’s house and the possible motive for doing so.

We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Bergin, J. — assault, first degree, and arson, *second degree.)*Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 3

- 23 LT Case No. 16

- 2019

- CF

- 004412

- AXXX

_____________________________ R EQUAN J OSHUA J ACKSON , Appellant,

v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________ On appea l from the Circuit Co urt for Duval County. Tatiana Salvador, Judge. Jessica Yeary, Public Defender, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant Publi c Defender, T allahassee , for Appellant. Ashley M oody, Attorney General, and Daren L. Shippy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. November 28 , 2023
P ER C URIAM . A FFIRMED . J AY , E ISNAUGLE , and K ILBANE , JJ., concur.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________