alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
No. 333-41415 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-51193, 33-60093,
33-60091, 33-59091, 33-58148 and 33-58146 on Form S-8 of The Warnaco Group, Inc.
of our report dated March 3, 2000, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
of The Warnaco Group, Inc. for the year ended January 1, 2000.


Deloitte & Touche LLP

New York, New York
March 31, 2000
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project Nos. 2901-008 and 2902-009]

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for the Big Island Hydroelectric Project and the Holcomb Rock Hydroelectric Project, located on the James River in Bedford and Amherst Counties, Virginia, and has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the project. No federal lands or Indian Rservations are occupied by project works or located within the project boundary.

The DEA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

Copies of the DEA are available for review at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 208-1371. The DEA may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call (202) 208-2222 for assistance).

Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice and should be addressed to David P. Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. Please affix Project No. 2901-008 and Project No. 2902-009 to all comments. For further information, contact James T. Griffin at (202) 219-2799 or Monte TerHaar at (202) 219-2768.

Comments may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-3576  Filed 2-12-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION**     I, Richard F. Latour, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MicroFinancial Incorporated;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.                                                                      /s/ Richard F. Latour   Richard F. Latour   President and Chief Executive Officer   Date: November 9, 2007
V

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1715

For the relief of the estate of Irwin Rutman.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 7, 1993

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

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of the estate of Irwin Rutman.

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

3 SECTION 1. PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER DESIGNATION.

4 For purposes of part L of title I of the Omnibus

5 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.

6 3796 et seq.), relating to benefits for survivors of public

7 safety officers, Irwin Rutman of Staten Island, New York,

8 shall be deemed to have been a public safety officer on

9 October 29, 1990, and his family shall be entitled to death

10 benefits under such part.
2

•HR 1715 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION OF ATTORNEYS’ AND AGENTS’ FEES.

2 No amount exceeding 10 percent of a payment made

3 under section 1 may be paid to or received by any attorney

4 or agent for services rendered in connection with the pay5 ment. Any person who violates the provisions of this sec6 tion shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be subject

7 to a fine in the amount provided under title 18, United

8 States Code.

9 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

10 The provisions of section 1 shall take effect on the

11 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1737

Prohibiting the manufacture, sale, delivery, or importation of school buses

that do not have seat belts, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 20, 1993

Mr. JACOBS introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on Energy and Commerce and Public Works and Transportation

A BILL

Prohibiting the manufacture, sale, delivery, or importation

of school buses that do not have seat belts, 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. PROHIBITION.

4 No person shall manufacture, sell, deliver, or import

5 any school bus, constructed after the effective date of this

6 Act, for use by a person described in section 2 to provide

7 transportation service, unless such school bus is equipped

8 with a seat belt, with particular emphasis on the use of

9 an Aaron Gordon type flight attendant double shoulder

10 harness mechanism or other appropriate safety restraint
2

•HR 1737 IH

1 device providing equal or greater passenger safety, for

2 each passenger riding in such school bus.

3 SEC. 2. PERSONS TO WHICH PROHIBITION APPLIES.

4 The prohibition set forth in section 1 shall apply to—

5 (1) any school bus, as such term is defined in

6 section 4221(d)(7)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code

7 of 1986; and

8 (2) any Federal, State, or local government en9 tity, school district, or other public or private entity

10 providing transportation to passengers by school

11 bus.

12 SEC. 3. CIVIL PENALTIES; SECRETARY’S AUTHORITY TO

13 COMPROMISE.

14 (a) AMOUNT OF PENALTIES.—Whoever violates any

15 provision of this Act, or any regulation issued thereunder,

16 shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000

17 for each such violation. A violation with respect to each

18 school bus shall constitute a separate violation, except that

19 the maximum civil penalty shall not exceed $800,000 for

20 any related series of violations.

21 (b) COMPROMISE OF PENALTIES.—Any such civil

22 penalty may be compromised by the Secretary of Trans23 portation. In determining the amount of such penalty, or

24 the amount agreed upon in compromise, the appropriate25 ness of such penalty to the size of the business of the per-
3

•HR 1737 IH

1 son charged and the gravity of the violation shall be con2 sidered. The amount of such penalty, when finally deter3 mined, or the amount agreed upon in compromise, may

4 be deducted from any sums owing by the United States

5 to the person charged.

6 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

7 This Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of

8 its enactment.

Æ
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

AMAURY RAMOS,

Appellant,

v.

CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION,

Appellee.

No. 4D2022-3361

[May 15, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Samantha Schosberg Feuer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2020-

CA-012583.

Christopher Herrera and Jose P. Font of Font & Nelson, PLLC, Fort

Lauderdale, for appellant.

Kristi Bergemann Rothell of Methe & Rothell, P.A., West Palm Beach, 

for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Archer v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 313 So. 3d 645 

(Fla. 4th DCA 2021). 

WARNER, CONNER and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-1221-12

THE STATE OF TEXAS

v.

TONY TYRELL BETTS, Appellee

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

NAVARRO COUNTY

PRICE, J., filed a concurring opinion.

CONCURRING OPINION

I agree with the Court’s resolution of the plain-view and community-caretaking issues

and readily join those facets of the Court’s opinion. I do not join the Court’s standing

1

analysis, however, because I believe the Court has misconceived the issue. Perhaps

1

Majority Opinion at 11-15.
Betts — 2

misguided by the State Prosecuting Attorney’s formulation of the issue, the Court asks

2

whether the appellant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises searched. But

3

it is not really the legality of the search that is in issue here. Indeed, the Court acknowledges

as much in its plain-view analysis, correctly concluding that there was no search involved

because the trial court found that the authorities could fully observe the dogs, and their

lamentable condition, without intruding even upon the curtilage of the house. Therefore,

4

the question is really whether the appellant had standing on the facts presented by virtue of

an ownership or possessory interest in the things that were seized, viz., the dogs. It is

undisputed on the record that the dogs were his, and that should suffice to resolve the

standing issue in his favor. Whether the appellant had a reasonable expectation of privacy

5

2

Id. at 6.

3

Id. at 6-11.

4

Id. at 11-12. Compare Florida v. Jardines, ___ S.Ct. ___ , 2013 WL 1196577 (2013) (drugsniff dog’s physical intrusion upon the curtilage of a home in order to detect facts giving rise to

probable cause itself constitutes a “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes).

5

See United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 93, 95-96 (1951) (defendant had standing to challenge

the warrantless seizure of narcotics in a hotel room occupied by his aunts by virtue of the fact that he

was allowed access to the premises “at will” and he had a property interest in the seized narcotics);

see also Wayne R. LaFave, 6 SEARCH AND SEIZURE: A TREATISE ON THE FOURTH AMENDMENT §

11.3(c), at 225 (5 ed. 2012) (“Assume now a situation in which the defendant moving to suppress

th

certain evidence has established a property interest in those effects but has not in addition established

any expectation of privacy as to them . . .. Is such a person totally without standing? Not at all.

Though there is little authority directly in point . . ., it would seem that a ‘possessory interest in the

item seized should give rise to fourth amendment protection and should entitle an individual to

challenge the reasonableness of the seizure.’” (quoting William A. Knox, Some Thoughts on the Scope
Betts — 3

in the curtilage of the home strikes me as beside the point when the dispositive question is

whether he had standing to challenge the seizure.

FILED: April 17, 2013

PUBLISH

of the Fourth Amendment and Standing to Challenge Searches and Seizures, 40 MO.L.REV. 1, 50

(1975))).
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 29 (Monday, February 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9870-9871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3459]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meetings

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

[[Page 9871]]

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

    Name of Committee: National Human Genome Research Institute 
Initial Review Group Genome Research Review Committee.
    Date: March 12-13, 2001.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications and/or 
proposals.
    Place: Bethesda Holiday Inn, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: Ken D. Nakamura, PhD., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Human Genome 
Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301 402-0838.

    Name of Committee: National Human Genome Research Institute 
Initial Review Group Ethical, Legal, Social Impliations Review 
Committee.
    Date: March 15, 2001.
    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Conference Room B2B32/Bldg 31, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, 
MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Rudy O. Pozzatti, PhD., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Human Genome 
Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301 402-0838.

    Name of Committee: National Human Genome Research Institute 
Initial Review Group Genome Research Review Committee.
    Date: March 28, 2001.
    Time: 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Human Genome Research Institute, National 
Institutes of Health, Building 31, Room B2B32, Bethesda, MD 20892 
(Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Ken D. Nakamura, PhD., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Human Genome 
Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301 402-0838.


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.172, Human 
Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 2, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-3459 Filed 2-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 27 (Thursday, February 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 9623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3311]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


RTCA Special Committee 172; Future Air-Ground Communications in 
the VHF Aeronautical Data Band (118-137 MHz)

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for 
Special Committee 172 meeting to be held February 27-March 1, 2001, 
starting at 9:00 a.m. The meeting will be held at RTCA, 1140 
Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036.
    The agenda will include: February 27: Plenary Session Convenes; (1) 
Introductory Remarks; (2) Review Meeting Agenda; (3) Review Previous 
Meeting Minutes; (4) Working Group (WG)-2 Convenes to work on Minimum 
Aviation System Performance Standards (MASPS); (5) WG-3 Convenes to 
work on VHF Data Link 2 and 3 Minimum Operational Performance Standards 
(MOPS). February 28: (6) Working Group 3 continues. March 1: Plenary 
Sessions Reconvenes: (7) Review ICAO Aeronautical Mobile Communications 
Panel (AMCP) Activities; (8) Report on Next Generation Communications 
(NEXCOM) Advisory Rulemaking Committee and other FAA digital 
activities; (9) Report on Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee, 
Systems Architecture Interfaces work on NEXCOM; (10) Review Status of 
EUROCAE WG-47; (11) Other Business; (12) Date and Location of Next 
Meeting; (13) Closing.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 
1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 
833-9339 (phone); (202) 833-9434 (fax); or http://www.rtca.org (web 
site). Members of the public may present a written statement to the 
committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 1, 2001.
Janice L. Peters,
Designated Official.
[FR Doc. 01-3311 Filed 2-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Pedro Miguel GONZALEZ-LOPEZ, also known as Pedro L. Gonzalez, also known as Pedro Gonzalez, also known as Pedro M. Gonzalez, also known as Pete Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50047

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 11, 2011.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Javier N. Maldonado, Law Office of Javier N. Maldonado, PC, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Pedro Miguel Gonzalez-Lopez (Gonzalez) appeals his conditional guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Gonzalez contends that he was deprived of due process during the prior removal hearing and that the district court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss the indictment on this basis.

Section 1326 prohibits an alien who was previously removed from reentering the United States without the Attorney General’s permission. § 1326(a). An alien who is prosecuted under § 1326 may collaterally attack the prior removal order as an element of the criminal offense. *United States v. Mendoza-Lopez,*481 U.S. 828, 838-39, 107 S.Ct. 2148, 95 L.Ed.2d 772 (1987). To do so, the alien must establish (1) that the removal hearing was fundamentally unfair, (2) that the hearing effectively eliminated his right to challenge the hearing by means of judicial review of the removal order, (3) that he was prejudiced by the procedural deficiencies at the hearing, and (4) that he exhausted any administrative remedies that were available to challenge the order. *United States v. Lopez-Ortiz,*313 F.3d 225, 229 (5th Cir.2002); § 1326(d).

Gonzalez contends that the immigration judge failed to explain the right to appeal the removal order, the appeal waiver, and the consequences of waiving the right to appeal, rendering the removal hearing fundamentally unfair. Gonzalez’s arguments are without merit. Thus, we need not reach his arguments on the other elements of the collateral attack. *See Lopez-Ortiz,*313 F.3d at 231. The judgment of the district court is 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1779 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1779

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 401 South Washington Street in Chillicothe, Missouri, as the ``Jerry 
            L. Litton United States Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 1993

  Ms. Danner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 401 South Washington Street in Chillicothe, Missouri, as the ``Jerry 
            L. Litton United States Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 401 
South Washington Street in Chillicothe, Missouri, is designated as the 
``Jerry L. Litton United States Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, regulation, document, record, map, or other 
paper of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 is 
deemed to be a reference to the ``Jerry L. Litton United States Post 
Office Building''.

                                 <all>
```
Order entered March 1 4 , 2014

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 13

- 00999

- CV

LOUIS MARTIN, JR., Appellant

V.

U.S. MERCHANTS FINAN CIAL GROUP, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County , Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10

- 15757



### O RDER

We GRANT appellant’s March 12, 2014 unopposed motion to extend appellate deadlines

and ORDER the reply brief be filed no later than March 24, 2014.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS

JUSTICE