alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[821 NYS2d 500]

#### In the Matter of David P. Antonucci, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee of the Fifth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Fourth Department,

September 29, 2006

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Anthony J. Gigliotti, Acting Chief Counsel, Fifth Judicial District Grievance Committee,*Syracuse, for petitioner.

*134
      *Emil M. Rossi,*Syracuse, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on January 14, 1988, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Watertown. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with misconduct arising from his representation of a creditor in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York (Bankruptcy Court). Respondent filed an answer admitting the factual allegations of the petition and disputing the conclusions that his conduct violated the Disciplinary Rules. Respondent appeared before this Court and submitted matters in mitigation.

Respondent commenced three proceedings in Bankruptcy Court on behalf of a creditor seeking to deny bankruptcy protection for debts owed to the creditor. Respondent was sanctioned in one of the proceedings on the ground that the proceeding was frivolous and, in another proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court found that, although the proceeding was meritless, sanctions were not warranted. Finally, in the third proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court found that the conduct of respondent in reaching a settlement and obtaining a judgment against the debtor without notice to the bankruptcy trustee caused the debtor to incur additional expense. The Bankruptcy Court further found, however, that respondent did not act with the intent to deceive the Court.

We conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

DR 1-102 (a) (5) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [5])—engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7])—engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer;

DR 7-102 (a) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.33 [a] [1])—filing a suit or asserting a position on behalf of a client when he knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another; and

DR 7-102 (a) (2) (22 NYCRR 1200.33 [a] [2])—knowingly advancing a claim that is unwarranted under existing law that cannot be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.

*135We have considered the matters submitted by respondent in mitigation, including that he was sanctioned in only one of the three proceedings and that the Bankruptcy Court termed his conduct uncharacteristic. We have also considered respondent’s expression of remorse. Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be censured.

Scudder, J.E, Gorske, Green and Pine, JJ., concur.

Order of censure entered.
§ 154.204 Changes in rate schedules, forms of service agreements, or the general terms and conditions. A filing to revise rate schedules, forms of service agreements, or the general terms and conditions, must: ( a ) Adhere to the requirements of subparts A, B, and C, of this part;
( b ) Contain a description of the change in service, including, but not limited to, applicability, necessity for the change, identification of services and types of customers that will be affected by the change;
( c ) Explain how the proposed tariff provisions differ from those currently in effect, including an example showing how the existing and proposed tariff provisions operate. Explain why the change is being proposed at this time;
( d ) Explain the impact of the proposed revision on firm and interruptible customers, including any changes in a customer's rights to capacity in the manner in which a customer is able to use such capacity, receipt or delivery point flexibility, nominating and scheduling, curtailment, capacity release;
( e ) Include workpapers showing the estimated effect on revenues and costs over the 12-month period commencing on the proposed effective date of the filing. If the filing proposes to change an existing penalty provision, provide workpapers showing the penalty revenues and associated quantities under the existing penalty provision during the latest 12-month period; and
( f ) List other filings pending before the Commission which may significantly affect the filing.
Pictured is an asian male washing his hands and with the text that says “Do good; 

Wash your hands!”
### §2413. Saving provisions

#### (a) Regulations

All regulations promulgated under this chapter prior to October 2, 1996, shall remain in effect until superseding regulations are promulgated under section 2405 of this title.

#### (b) Permits

All permits issued under this chapter shall remain in effect until they expire in accordance with the terms of those permits.

(Pub. L. 95–541, §14, as added Pub. L. 104–227, title I, §107, Oct. 2, 1996, 110 Stat. 3042.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 14 of Pub. L. 95–541, Oct. 28, 1978, 92 Stat. 2057, amended section 1971 of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse, and enacted a provision set out as a note under section 1971 of Title 22 prior to being amended generally by Pub. L. 104–227.
### §255. Effect on existing homestead, mineral, etc., entries; revision of boundaries

Nothing contained herein shall affect any valid existing claim, location, or entry made under the land laws of the United States, whether for homestead, mineral, right-of-way, or any other purpose whatsoever, or shall affect the right of any such claimant, locator, or entryman to the full use and enjoyment of his land, nor the rights reserved by treaty to the Indians of any tribes. The boundaries of Olympic National Park may be revised only by Act of Congress.

(June 29, 1938, ch. 812, §5, 52 Stat. 1242; Pub. L. 94–578, title III, §320(c), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2739.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Herein, referred to in text, means act June 29, 1938, which is classified to sections 251 and 252 to 255 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

The land laws of the United States, referred to in text, are classified generally to Title 43, Public Lands.

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–578 substituted "The boundaries of Olympic National Park may be revised only by Act of Congress" for "The President may after eight months from June 29, 1938 by proclamation add to the Olympic National Park any lands within the boundaries of the Olympic National Forest, and any lands which may be acquired by the Government by gift or purchase, which he may deem it advisable to add to such park; and any lands so added to such park shall, upon their addition thereto, become subject to all laws and regulations applicable to other lands within such park: Provided, That the total area of the said park shall not exceed eight hundred and ninety-eight thousand two hundred and ninety-two acres: Provided further, That before issuing any such proclamation, the President shall consult with the Governor of the State of Washington, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Agriculture and advise them of the lands which he proposes to add to such park, and shall afford them a reasonable opportunity to consult with and communicate to him their views and recommendations with respect to the addition of such lands to such park."

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Proclamation No. 3003

Proc. No. 3003, Jan. 6, 1953, 18 F.R. 169, enlarged the Olympic National Park by adding to it certain lands within the Olympic National Forest.
1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 124,104

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

V.

JOSE ANGEL RIVERA-CRUZ,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; SETH L. RUNDLE, judge. Opinion filed April 15, 2022.

Appeal dismissed.

Michelle A. Davis, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

Lance J. Gillett, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, 

attorney general, for appellee.

Before MALONE, P.J., SCHROEDER and HURST, JJ.

PER CURIAM: At the time of Jose Angel Rivera-Cruz' sentencing for one count of 

criminal possession of a weapon, the district court determined he was entitled to jail 

credit for the time he had served, which resulted in his entire prison sentence being 

satisfied. The district then imposed postrelease supervision of 12 months as required by 

K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3717(d)(1)(C). Rivera-Cruz now appeals the imposition of his 

postrelease sentence. Specifically, he argues the district court erred in ordering him to 

serve a term of postrelease supervision because he was never placed in the custody of the 

Kansas Department of Corrections.
2

After Rivera-Cruz' brief was filed, the State filed a notice of change in custodial 

status in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 2.042 (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 18), 

indicating Rivera-Cruz satisfied the term of his postrelease supervision on December 25, 

2021. The State's notice included appropriate documentation reflecting Rivera-Cruz was 

no longer on postrelease supervision.

We issued an order to the parties to show cause why the appeal should not be 

dismissed as moot in light of Rivera-Cruz' completion of his postrelease supervision. In 

our order, we advised that Rivera-Cruz' failure to respond by March 14, 2022, could 

result in dismissal of the appeal. Rivera-Cruz did not respond. The State responded, 

asserting the appeal should be dismissed as moot. We agree with the State.

As a general rule, appellate courts do not decide moot questions. An appellate 

court can dismiss an appeal as moot if it can be "'clearly and convincingly shown the 

actual controversy has ended, the only judgment that could be entered would be 

ineffectual for any purpose, and [the judgment] would not impact any of the parties' 

rights.' [Citation omitted.]" State v. Roat, 311 Kan. 581, 584, 466 P.3d 439 (2020).

We observe nothing showing an ongoing case or controversy, and no ruling from 

us can affect Rivera-Cruz' rights as the full term of postrelease supervision has been 

served. Accordingly, any judgment we could enter would be ineffectual for any purpose.

We dismiss Rivera-Cruz' appeal as moot.

Appeal dismissed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  About SBA 
-  Open Government 
-  Information Quality 
-  Website Content Inventory 

## Section navigation

-  SBA locations 
-  Open government    -  FOIA 
  -  Digital SBA 
  -  About the SBA.gov website 
  -  SBA privacy program 
  -  Privacy Act request guide 
  -  Information quality      -  Plain language 
    -  Information quality guidelines 
    -  Website content inventory 
  -  SBA guidance 
  -  AI inventory 
  -  Made in America waivers 
-  SBA Newsroom 
-  Work for SBA 
-  Organization 
-  Oversight and advocacy 
-  Information in other languages 

# Website content inventory

----

## Content

----

We determine the information and services available based on various criteria. This ranges from legal requirements and directives to mission-critical data and requested information. The following is a list of items that SBA provides on our public web site.

## Priorities

### **Priority 1: Urgent regulation and assistance information**

SBA provides:
                  - Disaster information, statuses, and declaration notices.
                  - Performance and accountability reports to Congress.
                  - Information on legislation, notices, and regulations.

### **Priority 2: Time-sensitive information**

SBA provides:
                  - SBA provides:
                  - A list of assets available for purchase.
                  - Press releases, audio/video releases, and news.
                  - Forms and online applications (HUBZone, VetCert, etc.).

### **Priority 3: Information of interest to a broad spectrum of website audiences**

SBA provides:
                  - An overview of SBA – mission statements, directories, and biographies.
                  - Online and informational training.
                  - A listing of SBA lending, training, and counseling partners.
                  - A listing of large companies that want to partner or subcontract to small businesses.                       - A listing of contracting representatives that track small business concerns. 
                  - Reports, guides, and data for research purposes.
                  - Frequently asked questions and a glossary of terms.

### **Priority 4: Other information**

SBA provides:
                  - Information about SBA and its use of the web.                       - Access to an answer desk for users with further questions. 
                  - A program office mission and service overview.
                  - FOIA/Privacy guidelines and policies.
                  - Web viewer/reader standards, policies, procedures, guidelines, and statistics.
                  - Local and regional reports, data, training/counseling, guidance, and financing.

## Schedules

SBA provides the information above as it is available, unless otherwise required by law. Please submit any questions or comments to the webmaster.

## Additional information

For more information about the web content inventory and the E-Government Act, please visit Section 207 of the E-Government Act.
### §4106. Reports to Congress

After consultation with the States receiving funds under this chapter and with any interstate commission involved in carrying out a project under this chapter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate not later than 90 days after the end of the fiscal year 1988, and each second fiscal year occurring after that fiscal year, a report which contains—

(1) a description of each project and law enforcement effort receiving funds under this chapter during the last 2 fiscal years ending before such report is submitted;

(2) a specification of the total amount of funds from the Federal Government and the total amount of funds from each State spent on each project and a law enforcement effort receiving funds under this chapter during the last 2 fiscal years ending before such report is submitted;

(3) an assessment of each project and law enforcement effort receiving funds under this chapter during the last 2 fiscal years ending before such report is submitted to determine whether such project is furthering the purposes of this chapter; and

(4) a statement specifying all funds which have been apportioned pursuant to section 4104(a) of this title and are available for obligation by a State or the Secretary but which have not been obligated.

(Pub. L. 99–659, title III, §307, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3735.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title III of Pub. L. 99–659, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3731, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of title III to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4101 of this title and Tables.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1987, see section 310 of Pub. L. 99–659, set out as a note under section 4101 of this title.

#### Abolition of House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of House of Representatives abolished and its jurisdiction transferred by House Resolution No. 6, One Hundred Fourth Congress, Jan. 4, 1995. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of House of Representatives treated as referring to Committee on Resources of House of Representatives in case of provisions relating to fisheries, wildlife, international fishing agreements, marine affairs (including coastal zone management) except for measures relating to oil and other pollution of navigable waters, or oceanography by section 1(b)(3) of Pub. L. 104–14, set out as a note preceding section 21 of Title 2, The Congress. Committee on Resources of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Natural Resources of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 6, One Hundred Tenth Congress, Jan. 5, 2007.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

AP POINTMENT TO ORPHANS’ COURT

PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE :

:

:

: No. 756

SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27 th day of December , 201 7 , Julian E. Gray, Esquire, Allegheny

County, is hereby appointed as a member of the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules

Committee for a term of three years, commencing January 1, 2018.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Administrative Proceedings Rulings

Release No. 6850 / May 16, 2022

Administrative Proceeding

File No. 3-20801

In the Matter of 

DF Growth REIT II, LLC

Order Redesignating 

Presiding Judge

I ORDER that Administrative Law Judge Carol Fox Foelak is designated, 

in place of Administrative Law Judge Jason S. Patil, to preside at the hearing

in this proceeding and to perform other and related duties under the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice.

For the Commission, by its Chief Administrative Law Judge, by delegated 

authority.

/s/ James E. Grimes

Chief Administrative Law Judge
Order entered October 21, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00689-CV

ANGELOS KOLOBOTOS AND KOLOBOTOS PROPERTIES, LLC,

Appellants

V.

JTREO, INC. AND DAVID BUTTROSS A/K/A/ DAVID A. BUTTROSS, II,

Appellees

On Appeal from the 95th District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-07775

ORDER

By notice filed October 19, 2021, appellants inform the Court that appellant 

Angelos Kolobotos has filed for bankruptcy. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 8.2, further action in this cause is automatically suspended. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 8.2. Accordingly, for administrative purposes, this cause is ABATED and 

treated as a closed case. It may be reinstated on motion by any party showing, in 
accordance with rule of appellate procedure 8.3, that the appeal is permitted by 

federal law or the bankruptcy court. See id. 8.3. 

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### Arthur Ryan, Appellant, v. Joseph V. O’Leary, as Comptroller of the State of New York, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

*682Present — Close, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           6,967
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                       339
<INVENTORY>                                     21,794
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,824
<PP&E>                                          14,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  82,954
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,011
<BONDS>                                            625
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      8,110
<COMMON>                                           359
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,296
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    82,954
<SALES>                                         82,591
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,591
<CGS>                                           63,164
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,742
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   281
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 537
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,133)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,133)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,133)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.38)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS RULINGS

Release No. 6853/May 26, 2022

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-20801

In the Matter of :

:

DF GROWTH REIT II, LLC : ORDER

The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted this proceeding with an Order 

Temporarily Suspending Exemption Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Rule 

258 of Regulation A Thereunder and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing on March 16, 2022. 

Respondent DF Growth REIT II, LLC, requested a hearing, and the Commission ordered that the 

matter be heard by an Administrative Law Judge on March 31, 2022. On May 16, 2022, the 

proceeding was reassigned to the undersigned. 

A prehearing conference was held today. Jennifer Chun Barry and Stephen Kam, Esqs., 

appeared for the Commission’s Division of Enforcement. Leslie A. Hakala, Esq., appeared for 

Respondent DF Growth. The hearing will be conducted remotely, through video hearing sessions. 

The parties’ proposed case schedule, filed May 13, 2022, was adopted, with changes to be proposed 

by the parties after they confer on various procedural matters. The hearing previously scheduled to 

commence June 6, 2022, was postponed to a date in July to be proposed after the parties confer. 

The parties will also confer on deadlines for any additional prehearing motions. While counsel are 

located in the Pacific time zone, some proposed witnesses are located in the Eastern time zone, and

the dates and times of the testimony of such witnesses will accommodate their locations. Counsel 

also proposed to negotiate stipulations that may shorten the previously-expected length of the 

hearing. A prehearing conference, previously scheduled for June 2, 2022, will be scheduled as 

needed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/S/ Carol Fox Foelak 

Carol Fox Foelak

Administrative Law Judge