The 2023 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
Plaintiff Ernisa Barnwell requests that this case be heard by a federal judge instead of a federal magistrate judge. (Doc. 7). “Each district court shall establish rules pursuant to which the magistrate judges shall discharge their duties.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(4). Under Local Rule 1.02(a), M.D. Fla., “[a] United States magistrate judge in the Middle District can exercise the maximum authority and perform any duty permitted by the Constitution and other laws of the United States.”The defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. R. Crim. P. and Rule 1.02, M. D. Fla. Rules, and has entered a plea of guilty to Counts One and Two of the Information. After cautioning and examining the defendant under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary, and that the offenses charged are supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offenses. I therefore recommend that the plea of guilty be accepted and that the defendant be adjudged guilty and have sentence imposed accordingly. The parties agreed to waive the fourteen (14) day period to object to this Report and Recommendation.The defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. R. Crim. P. and Rule 1.02, M. D. Fla. Rules, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count One and Three of the Superseding Indictment. After cautioning and examining the defendant under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary, and that the offenses charged are supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offenses. I therefore recommend that the plea of guilty be accepted and that the defendant be adjudged guilty and have sentence imposed accordingly. The parties agreed to waive the fourteen (14) day period to object to this Report and Recommendation.The defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. R. Crim. P. and Rule 1.02, M. D. Fla. Rules, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count Two and Four of the Superseding Indictment. After cautioning and examining the defendant under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary, and that the offenses charged are supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offenses. I therefore recommend that the plea of guilty be accepted and that the defendant be adjudged guilty and have sentence imposed accordingly. The parties agreed to waive the fourteen (14) day period to object to this Report and Recommendation.Yet the Confederation Congress was almost powerless to stop these abuses. After a committee noted confusion about the extent of congressional power over Indian affairs in 1787, Congress had to ask the States for their cooperation in curbing the abuses that their own citizens were perpetrating. Prucha 48-49. The weakness of Congress meant, however, that “federal attempts to check state intrusions were often ignored.” Cohen §1.02[3], at 22. The result was that, by the time of the Constitutional Convention, “the young nation [stood on] the brink of Indian warfare on several fronts.” Ibid. Such a war, feared some Founders, could be destructive to the fledgling Republic. See G. Ablavsky, The Savage Constitution, 63 Duke L. J. 999, 1033 (2014).Johnson 106.6 63.96 $250.00 $15,990.00 Patrice Torres 235.1 141.06 $150.00 $21,159.00 Ali Lowe 1.7 1.02 $150.00 $153.00 Lydia Bettencourt 1.6 0.96 $150.00 $144.00 Karla Viator 4.8 2.88 $150.00 $432.00 Judy
380.00 Melissa Johnson 154 92.4 $150.00 $13,860.00 Patrice Torres 1 0.6 $150.00 $90.00 Ali Lowe 1.7 1.02 $150.00 $153.00 Lydia Bettencourt 2 1.2 $150.00 $180.00 Karla Viator 4.6 2.76 $150.00 $414.00 Judy
See generally 1 Florida Real Estate Transactions § 1.02 (2022) (“The[] two means of complying with the Statute are not the same, however. In the first, there is a written contract that integrates the entire understanding between the parties. In the second, there is a parol agreement between the parties with a written memorandum embodying that agreement's essential elements.”).Here, as relevant, the ALJ first addressed Listing 1.02 and Dr. Donohue's checklist-style form opining on the ultimate matters that meeting Listing 1.02 would require. Tr. at 24; see Tr. at 463-64 (opinion). Plaintiff concedes, and the ALJ found, that Dr. Donohue's opinion concerned an old version of Listing 1.02. Pl.'s Mem. at 3-4; Tr. at 24. The version in effect at the time of the ALJ's Decision required, among other things, the “inability to ambulate effectively,” 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 1.02, which typically means the person cannot ambulate independent of “the use of a hand-held assistive device(s) that limits the functioning of both upper extremities,” id. § 1.00B2b. The ALJ found that “[t]here was no medical documentation in the record supporting the use of a walker, bilateral canes, bilateral crutches, or wheeled/seated mobility device involving the use of both hands,” so therefore Dr. Donohue's opinion on the Listing matter was “unpersuasive.” Tr. at 24.Webster underwent a follow-up lab test in September 2014, which showed that his AST and ALT scores were within normal range. Doc. 86-5 at 20-21. Corizon again conducted lab work on Webster in November 2014, id. at 22-24; January 2015, id. at 25-27; and on February 10, 2015, id. at 28-33. On February 20, 2015, medical evaluated Webster in the Chronic Illness Clinic, during which it assessed the progression of Webster's HCV and noted he had a APRI score of 1.02. Doc. 86-4 at 4. Webster's discussed medical plan was diet and exercise with a follow-up visit scheduled for June 2015. Id. Webster underwent additional lab work about four days later, on February 24, 2015, Doc. 86-5 at 34, and again in March and May 2015, id. at 35, 36-38.. . . that plaintiff's knee impairment did not meet or equal a listed impairment - specifically, listing 1.02 . . .
. . . See Restatement (Third) of Agency, § 1.02 ("Whether a relationship is characterized as agency in an agreement . . .
. . . as a part of their fact finding pursuant to the U of L's sexual harassment policy (Personnel Policy 1.02 . . . The Sexual Harassment Policy (Personnel Policy 1.02) sets forth the process for investigating and resolving . . . The pertinent U of L sexual harassment policy is Personal Policy 1.02 ("Per 102"). . . . Frost, PER 1.02 - Sexual Harassment, If the investigation results in a factual determination that the . . .
. . . On appeal, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in: (1) addressing Listing § 1.02 (Major Dysfunction of . . . Listing § 1.02 provides as follows: 1.02 Major dysfunction of a joint(s) (due to any cause): Characterized . . . The claimant's musculoskeletal and mental impairments have been evaluated in the context of listings 1.02 . . . gave no more than a conclusory statement, without so much as reciting the requirements of Listing § 1.02 . . . Based on the foregoing, the ALJ's conclusion -- that Plaintiff did not meet or equal Listing § 1.02(A . . .
. . . And although the 2014 RFDS noted an average water use of 3.13 acre-feet (1.02 million gallons) for the . . .
. . . (ECF No. 13 at ¶ 1.02). . . .
. . . In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ gave particular attention to listings 1.02 (major dysfunction of . . .
. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02 and 1.04 in reaching her conclusion. . . .
. . . Restatement § 1.02; see also U.S. v. . . . Restatement § 1.02 cmt. b. Henderson alleges that USA Funds is doing just that. . . . Restatement § 1.02 cmt. d.; see also, e.g. , Romak USA, Inc. v. . . .
. . . Plaintiff complains about the ALJ's assessment of listing 1.02(A), which applies to a "[m]ajor dysfunction . . . P, App. 1, § 1.02(A). . . . Although the ALJ did not specifically address the requirements of listing 1.02(A), his decision expressly . . . inconsistent with the existence of an extreme limitation on the ability to walk as required by listing 1.02 . . . establish and, in fact, did not suffer from an inability to effectively ambulate, as required by listing 1.02 . . .
. . . In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ gave particular attention to listings 1.02 (Major dysfunction of . . .
. . . The ALJ considered Listings 1.02 ("Major dysfunction of a joint(s)"), 1.03 ("Reconstructive surgery or . . . P, App. 1, Listings 1.02, 1.03, 1.04. . . .
. . . . & Regs. 375-3-1.02(6) ("Each customer must provide documentation of his or her citizenship or lawful . . .
. . . The ALJ considered Listings 1.02, 1.04, and 3.03, in determining that Bonilla-Bukhari did not exhibit . . .
. . . Dec. of PRT Exhibit B, Page 61, § 1.02(a-b). 20. . . .
. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02(a), 1.04, 12.04, 12.08, and 12.09 in reaching . . .
. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02, 12.04, and 12.06 in reaching her conclusion . . .
. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02, 3.03, 12.04, and 12.06 in reaching his . . .
. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02, 5.00, 12.04, and 12.09 in reaching his . . .
. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02, 12.04, and 12.06 in reaching his conclusion . . . three, the ALJ considered the severity of Plaintiff's physical impairments in the context of Listing 1.02 . . .
. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02, 12.04, and 12.06, in reaching her conclusion . . .
. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02, 1.04, 12.04, 12.06, and 12.15 in reaching . . .
. . . meet listing 1.02, which relates to major dysfunctions of joints. 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpt. . . . P, App. 1, § 1.02. . . . P, App. 1, § 1.02. . . . So any error the ALJ made when she found Courtney did not meet listing 1.02 was harmless. . . . The ALJ's treatment of listing 1.02 does not provide an independent basis for remand. . . .
. . . The ALJ considered Listings 1.02 and 1.04, determining that Martes did not exhibit the necessary medical . . .
. . . (See PEx. 1 Arts. 1.01, 1.02, 2.01, 2.04, 3.01). . . . (See PEx. 1 Arts. 1.02, 4.01). . . . approximately $500,000 in unpaid service contract revenue that Rigaku has withheld in violation of CSA Art. 1.02 . . . Rigaku has improperly withheld $500,000 in unpaid service contract revenue in violation of CSA Art. 1.02 . . .
. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02, 1.03, and 1.04 in reaching his conclusion . . .
. . . (Id. at § 1.02.) . . . (See Equilon Contract §§ 1.02, 1.04, 1.10.) No such provisions appear in the butane supply section. . . .
. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, 12.02, 12.04, 12.06, 12.09 . . .
. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02 and 1.04 in reaching his conclusion. . . .
. . . The ALJ particularly considered the criteria of Listings 1.02 and 1.04 in reaching his conclusion, as . . . Donald Goldman had testified that Plaintiff's orthopedic impairments equaled Listings 1.00(B)(2)(b), 1.02 . . . ALJ further explained that Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or equal the requirements of Listings 1.02 . . .
. . . . § 1.02. . . .
. . . The Salon generated approximately $1.02 million in revenue from 2010 through 2013. . . .
. . . The share price fell an additional 40%, to $1.02, by June 23, 2015. . . .
. . . proxy respondents was 1.77 (0.99, 3.17), and when proxy respondents were included, the result was 1.73 (1.02 . . .
. . . In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ considered Listing 1.02, Major Dysfunction of a Joint; Listing 4.00 . . . P, app. 1 §§ 1.02, 4.00, 12.04, 12.09. . . . The ALJ determined that Listing 1.02 was not met because the record evidence did not "demonstrate the . . . Having found that Colbert could not meet Listings 1.02, 4.00, 12.04, or 12.09, the ALJ next assessed . . .
. . . The EAA Act, §§ 1.01-1.02 (docket no. 119, exh. A). B. . . .
. . . With regard to listing 1.02, the ALJ focused on Ms. . . .
. . . See BECK & KELLEY, 1-1 WATERS AND WATER RIGHTS § 1.02 (2017). . . .
. . . See BECK & KELLEY , 1-1 WATERS AND WATER RIGHTS § 1.02 (2017). . . .
. . . PX-3 at 1, § 1.02. Id. at 2, § 2.02. Id. at 3, § 8. Id. at 2, § 3, Ex. 1. PX-4 at 1, §§ 1.01, 1.02. . . .
. . . The ALJ also found that plaintiff's impairments did not meet the criteria of Section 1.02, but plaintiff . . .
. . . fine and gross movements effectively," and she fails to meet the standard set forth in Medical Listing 1.02 . . . Medical Listing 1.02 reads: 1.02 Major dysfunction of a joint(s) (due to any cause): Characterized by . . .
. . . . §§ 1.01(A), 1.02(C) ). . . .
. . . As noted in Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1.02 (16th ed. 2017), “The discharge is of singular importance to . . .
. . . following the first quarter of 2016, anticipated full-year revenue for 2016 to "be in the range of $1.02 . . .
. . . (Id. ) The ALJ reasoned that plaintiff's impairment of the ankle did not meet listings 1.02 or 1.06, . . .
. . . that "victim restitution" be added to the general purposes of the sentencing system as expressed in § 1.02 . . .
. . . step three in his determination that Plaintiff did not meet the requirements of Impairment Listings 1.02 . . . step three in her determination that Plaintiff did not meet the requirements of Impairment Listings 1.02 . . . Listings 1.02 addressing Major Dysfunction of Joints, also considers the inability to ambulate effectively . . . P, App. 1, § 1.02. In Jones v. . . . For the same reason, the claimant's hip impairment does not meet the requirements of Listing 1.02. . . .
. . . appropriate medically acceptable imaging of joint space narrowing, bony destruction, or ankylosis (Listing 1.02 . . .
. . . (The conversion price and warrant and option exercise prices were later changed to $1.02 per share.) . . .
. . . Permanent Easement for 1.02 Acres , No. 17-cv-1725. Doc. 29 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 23, 2017). . . .
. . . In making this finding, the ALJ considered “Listing 1.04(A) (disorders of the spine),” “Listing 1.02( . . .
. . . The ALJ looked specifically at Listing 1.04, disorders of the spine, and Listing 1.02, major dysfunction . . . alternative listing which the ALJ did not consider, we address the ALJ’s decision based on listings 1.02 . . .
. . . SB 4 at Section 1.02, Tex. . . .
. . . Section 1.02(2) of the General Conditions provides the parties’ statement of how they chose to define . . . Section 3.02(A) defines which types of standards, specifications, and the like are meant by section 1.02 . . .
. . . VIIB, Interpretations & Policies § 1.01, .02 (§ 1.01 amended 2014; § 1.02 adopted 2002). . . .
. . . in awarding a fee of 33% of a $26.5 million settlement fund, amounting to' a lodestar multiplier of 1.02 . . .
. . . The ALJ considered Listings 1.02 (major dysfunction of any joint), 1.04 (disorders of the spine), 12.04 . . .
. . . Bill Denny: As we’re sitting here talking, in real cash on hand they have a $1.02 for every $100 deposit . . .
. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, specifically considering Listing 1.02. Id. at 8. . . .
. . . trading resumed on January 13, 2016, KaloBios stock “opened at $2,51, reached an intra-day low of $1.02 . . .
. . . clause in contract between automobile dealer and manufacturer and citing Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.02 . . .
. . . these impairments alone or in combination did not meet or equal a listing impairment, including Listing 1.02 . . . Dereschuk does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals Listing 1.02 . . . court found substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s determination that Dereschuk did not meet Listings 1.02 . . .
. . . opined that those impairments did not meet or equal a Listing, stating that he had considered Listings 1.02 . . .
. . . .) § 1.02 Comm. cmt. . . . court gave a proper limiting instruction prior to opening statements, and read Pattern Jury Instruction 1.02 . . .
. . . In section 1.02 of the RLP, GSA described the space it was seeking: “a minimum of 108,850 to a maximum . . .
. . . With respect to Step 3, the ALJ considered whether Lloyd’s impairments met Listing 1.02, involving major . . . The ALJ already had concluded during her evaluation of Listing 1.02 that one of the listings’ shared . . . Thus her later discussion supported her determination that Listing 1.02 was not met; she did not need . . .
. . . Perry’s reading of QL-PAY showed that plaintiffs work was at a pay factor of 1.02, meaning that plaintiff . . . on the results of statistical analysis), A700 (Perry Dep. 139:1-7) (explaining that a pay factor of 1.02 . . .
. . . (Benefit Plan, Section 1.02, Appellant’s App’x at 325.) . . .
. . . property owned by the Debtors, and Soffe retained title to the Disputed Goods pursuant to sections 1.02 . . .
. . . In this circuit, district courts must conduct a colloquy akin to that in section 1.02 of the Bench Book . . .
. . . 1.01 of the Intercreditor Agreement provides that the “rules of interpretation contained in Section 1.02 . . . to the Senior Credit Agreement shall apply to this Agreement,” IA § 1.01; section 1.02 of the Credit . . . (CA § 1.02.) . . . (CA § 1.02.) . . .
. . . in finding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s step-three determination regarding Listing 1.02 . . .
. . . District Court Judges 1.02(c) (2013). . . .
. . . Id. at § 1.02. . . .
. . . In light of Plaintiffs specific impairments, the ALJ compared her impairments to listing 1.02, which . . . Listing 1.02 is [cjharacterized by gross anatomical deformity ... and chronic joint pain ... with signs . . . P, App. 1, § 1.02. . . . As explained above, listing 1.02 requires a showing of impairment in both upper joints. . . . Listing 1.02 also requires any impairments to a weight-bearing joint to cause an “extreme limitation . . .
. . . See Local Rule 1.02(b)(1), United States District Court, Middle District of Florida (Local Rule(s)) ( . . .
. . . Id. at 2, ¶¶ 1.01-1.02. . . .
. . . In this regard, paragraph 1.02, subparagraph C of the RLP provides that: Offered space must be contiguous . . . (with the exception of the ground level/first floor space referenced in paragraph 1.02.A. above) and . . .
. . . . 286, is evidence that he referred to size OOel capsules because the volume of size OOel capsules (1.02 . . . fill volume of standard size 00 capsules listed in Lightfoot, not that of size OOel capsules, which is 1.02 . . .
. . . that the Tollway granted at least some front-end waivers between January 2006 and July 2012, involving 1.02% . . .
. . . Listing 1.02 Regarding Major Dysfunction of a Joint Listing 1.02 provides: Major dysfunction of a joint . . . P, App. 1 § 1.02 (emphasis added). . . . Therefore, in order to meet the criteria of Listing 1.02, the evidence must show that the claimant is . . . Therefore, Arring-ton has not met his burden of proving an impairment that met listing 1.02. . . . Therefore, this court concludes that the ALJ’s finding with respect to Listing 1.02 must be upheld on . . .
. . . P, App. 1, Listing 1.02(B)— which governs the evaluation of a claimant’s ability to perform fine and . . .
. . . Listing 1.02 concerns the major dysfunction of a joint, which is characterized by: gross anatomical deformity . . . P, App. 1 § 1.02. . . .
. . . authority of the agent.” 12 Williston on Contracts at § 35:2; see also Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.02 . . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.02; see also, e.g., Matter of Carolin Paxson Advert., Inc., 938 F.2d . . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.02. . . . .
. . . authority of the agent.” 12 Williston on Contracts at § 35:2; see also Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.02 . . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.02; see also, e.g., Matter of Carolin Paxson Advert., Inc., 938 F.2d . . . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.02. . . . .
. . . The ALJ gave particular consideration to Listings 1.02 (Dysfunction of a major joint), 1.04 (Disorders . . .
. . . The ALJ considered Listings 1.02, pertaining to a major dysfunction of a joint; 1.04, pertaining to disorders . . .
. . . Paragraph 1.02 provides “You are authorized, empowered, and able to enter into and fully perform your . . .
. . . scheduled on the May 17, 2016 meeting in order to comply with the publication requirements of Section 1.02 . . .
. . . significant increase in traffic between 2001 and 2005, Beehive was required to reduce its rates from 4.59 to 1.02 . . .
. . . Article 1.02(B)(6) of the Law of Corporations of Puerto Rico provide that articles of incorporation may . . . Schroeder, supra at §§ 1.02[4], 1.02[6], 7.01[1], 10.01[2], 10.01[3], 11.01, 12.01 [2], provides a valuable . . .
. . . . & Regs. 391-3-1.02(2)(a)7(i)). . . .
. . . Information to be Included in the Report for Form 8-K (SEC Form 873), Section 1.02, at 5, https://www.sec.gov . . .
. . . Document #15-1 at 6 ¶ 1.02. . . .
. . . In reaching that conclusion, the ALJ considered listings 1.02 (major dysfunction of a joint), 1.03 (reconstructive . . . With respect to listings 1.02, 1.04, 3.02, and 14.09, the ALJ simply described the requirements of the . . .
. . . Ann. art. 6243i §§ 1.02(3), 4.03(a). . . .
. . . court questions the relevance of such labels to the present issue, See Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.02 . . .
. . . B, § 1.02 [hereinafter “Agreement”].) . . . Soon thereafter, NPS refused to honor its obligations under § 1.02. . . . NPS’s default prior to formal initiation of this litigation to be reasonable and reimbursable under § 1.02 . . . $9,433.25 billed by DLA Piper in this matter constitutes reasonable attorneys’ fees recoverable under § 1.02 . . .
. . . And the ALJ further explained that, under listings 1.02, 1.03, and 1.04, Putnam’s knee injury did not . . .