alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 04-8002

IN RE MICHAEL R. SMALLS, MEMBER OF THE BAR

Before FARLEY, GREENE, and HAGEL, Judges

O R D E R

The Court received credible evidence that attorney Michael R. Smalls (respondent) had been

convicted by a United States district court of a serious crime, as defined in Rule 7(b)(3) of the

Court's Rules of Admission and Practice, and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years.

On February 19, 2004, the Clerk of the Court, pursuant to Rule 7(b)(1)(A), imposed a temporary

nondisciplinary suspension from practice on the respondent and referred the matter to this panel.

Rule 5(b) of the Court's Rules of Admission and Practice provides that "[d]isbarment is

presumed appropriate for a practitioner convicted of a serious crime." Pursuant to Rule 7(b)(2), on

May 19, 2004, the Court ordered the respondent to show cause, within 30 days thereafter, why he

should not be disbarred from practice before this Court. The respondent was advised that a failure

to respond to this order would be deemed to be consent to disbarment. The respondent has not

responded to the order.

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 7(b)(2), it is

ORDERED that the February 19, 2004, temporary nondisciplinary suspension is terminated.

It is further

ORDERED that Michael R. Smalls is disbarred from practice before this Court.

DATED: July 9, 2004 PER CURIAM.
### §459a–4. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, acts June 3, 1948, ch. 393, 62 Stat. 301; June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title I, §105(a), 63 Stat. 381, which transferred lands in Dare County, North Carolina, to the administrative jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior to be administered as a part of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area project, is omitted in view of Pub. L. 87–313, set out as a note under this section.

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

#### Disposal of Lands

Pub. L. 87–313, Sept. 26, 1961, 75 Stat. 675, provided: "That the tract of Federal property comprising eight and one-tenth acres of land situated in Dare County, North Carolina, approximately two miles north of Kitty Hawk, which was transferred to the administrative jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior by the Act of June 3, 1948 (62 Stat. 301; 16 U.S.C. 459a [this section]), to be administered as a part of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area, may be disposed of by the Administrator of General Services in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended [see chapters 1 to 11 of Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, and division C (except sections 3302, 3307(e), 3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711) of subtitle I of Title 41, Public Contracts]."
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16E0007. BENEDEK v. ADAMS, et al.

On June 24, 2015, this court issued in an opinion in Case No. A15A0088

(Benedek v. The Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, et al.), in

which we reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with direction for the trial

court to apply the proper standard for the addition of parties, and to consider whether

the claims asserted against the original defendants in Benedek’s second amended

complaint are subject to dismissal on the merits. On July 23, 2015, the trial court

issued an order denying Benedek’s motion for leave to add additional defendants,

granting his motion to add his wife as a plaintiff, granting his request to amend his

complaint to add additional claims against the original defendants, but nevertheless

granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss on grounds that those claims are barred

by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Following this ruling, on August 19, 2015, Benedek filed a petition for

mandamus against the trial judge “seeking to enforce his absolute legalright to amend

his complaint.” On August 24, 2015, Benedek moved to vacate the trial court’s July

23, 2015 dismissal order. On the same day, the trial court granted his motion to

extend the time for filing a notice of appeal by 30 days, which allows Benedek until

September 21, 2015 to do so. Nevertheless, Benedek has filed an emergency motion

in this court seeking relief from the July 23, 2015 order of the trial court until the

September 25, 2015 deadline for the trial court to rule upon his petition for

mandamus.

Because a ruling from this court is not necessary to preserve jurisdiction of an

appeal and there is no contested issue that would become moot, Benedek’s emergency

September 17, 2015
motion for relief is hereby DENIED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

09/17/2015
### §1828. Foreign fishing incursions

#### (a) In general

Not later than 180 days after July 11, 2006, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall provide to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on steps that the Coast Guard will take to significantly improve the Coast Guard's detection and interdiction of illegal incursions into the United States exclusive economic zone by foreign fishing vessels.

#### (b) Specific issues to be addressed

The report shall—

(1) focus on areas in the exclusive economic zone where the Coast Guard has failed to detect or interdict such incursions in the 4-fiscal-year period beginning with fiscal year 2000, including such areas in the Western/Central Pacific and the Bering Sea; and

(2) include an evaluation of the potential use of unmanned aircraft and offshore platforms for detecting or interdicting such incursions.

#### (c) Biennial updates

The Secretary shall provide biannual reports updating the Coast Guard's progress in detecting or interdicting such incursions to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.

(Pub. L. 109–241, title VIII, §804, July 11, 2006, 120 Stat. 563.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006, and not as part of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Combination of Fisheries Enforcement Plans and Foreign Fishing Incursion Reports

Pub. L. 111–207, §4(b), July 27, 2010, 124 Stat. 2251, as amended by Pub. L. 113–281, title II, §221(a)(5), Dec. 18, 2014, 128 Stat. 3037, provided that: "The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall combine the reports required under section 224 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (16 U.S.C. 1861b) and section 804 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (16 U.S.C. 1828) into a single annual report for fiscal years beginning after fiscal year 2010. No report shall be required under this subsection, including that no report shall be required under section 224 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 or section 804 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006, for fiscal years beginning after fiscal year 2014."
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 96-4714 IVAN L. HAIRSTON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-92-85) Submitted: May 15, 1997 Decided: June 4, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Bruce A. Flora, Boones Mill, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Joseph W. H. Mott, AssistantUnited States Attorney, Tracy Taylor, Third Year Law Intern, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Ivan L. Hairston was convicted of drug and firearm offenses, including using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1994). He was sentenced to a term of 147 months imprisonment. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Bailey v. United States , ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 4039 (U.S. Dec. 6, 1995) (Nos. 94-7448/7492), Hairston filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997), seeking to have his § 924(c) conviction v acated. The government agreed that the conviction should be v acated. The district court then resentenced Hairston on the remaining counts, adding an enhancement for possession of a firearm during a drug offense. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual , § 2D1.1(b)(1) (Nov. 1995). Hairston objected to the enhancement, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to resentence him for convictions which he had not challenged and that a sentence enhancement violated double jeopardy. The district court overruledhis objection and sentenced him to a term of 108 months imprisonment. Hairston appeals, alleging constitutional error and contending that the district court erred in failing to hear evidence concerning the guideline enhancement. Finding no error, we affirm. We recently decided the issue raised here in United States v. Hillary , 106 F.3d 1170 (4th Cir. 1997), holding that the district courthas jurisdiction to resentence a defendant on a surviving drug conviction after he has been granted relief from a § 924(c) conviction in light of Bailey . Moreover, in response to an inquiry from the district court, Hairston's attorney conceded that the enhancement applied. We therefore affirm the sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
2
#### § 61.3 Applicability.

The procedures set forth in this part, with the exception of the appendices, apply to all organizational elements of the Department of Justice. Internal procedures applicable, respectively, to the Bureau of Prisons, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics are set forth in the appendices to this part, for informational purposes.
### §410aaa–83. Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to the National Park Service and to the Bureau of Land Management to carry out this Act an amount not to exceed $36,000,000 over and above that provided in fiscal year 1994 for additional administrative and construction costs over the fiscal year 1995–1999 period, and $300,000,000 for all land acquisition costs. No funds in excess of these amounts may be used for construction, administration, or land acquisition authorized under this Act without a specific authorization in an Act of Congress enacted after October 31, 1994.

(Pub. L. 103–433, title IX, §901, Oct. 31, 1994, 108 Stat. 4508.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is defined in section 3 of Pub. L. 103–433, which is set out as a Definitions note under section 410aaa of this title.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**
I, William H. Wilcox, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of United SurgicalPartners International, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4.  The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theRegistrant and have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the Registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b)  Designed such internal control over financialreporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regardingthe reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d)  Disclosed in this report any change in theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the Registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
 5.  The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theRegistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information;and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significantrole in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting. /s/ William H. Wilcox William H. Wilcox
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

Washington, D.C. 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 91827 / May 10, 2021

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced the temporary suspension of trading 

in the securities of Cerebain Biotech Corp. (CBBT) commencing at 9:30 a.m. EDT on May 11, 

2021 and terminating at 11:59 p.m. EDT on May 24, 2021.

The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities of the foregoing company due 

to a lack of current and accurate information about the company because it has not filed certain 

periodic reports with the Commission. This order was entered pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act).

The Commission cautions brokers, dealers, shareholders and prospective purchasers that they 

should carefully consider the foregoing information along with all other currently available 

information and any information subsequently issued by this company.

Brokers and dealers should be alert to the fact that, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11, at 

the termination of the trading suspension, no quotation may be entered relating to the securities 

of the subject company unless and until the broker or dealer has strictly complied with all of the 

provisions of the rule. If any broker or dealer is uncertain as to what is required by the rule, it 

should refrain from entering quotations relating to the securities of this company that has been 

subject to the trading suspension until such time as it has familiarized itself with the rule and is 

certain that all of its provisions have been met. Any broker or dealer with questions regarding

the rule should contact the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, DC 

at (202) 551-5777. If any broker or dealer enters any quotation which is in violation of the rule,

the Commission will consider the need for prompt enforcement action. 

If any broker, dealer or other person has any information which may relate to this matter, they 

should immediately communicate it to the Delinquent Filings Branch of the Division of 

Enforcement at (202) 551-5466, or by e-mail at DelinquentFilings@sec.gov.
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 14

- 00360

- CV
GEORGE M. BISHOP, DO UG BULCAO, SENATOR J OHN WHITMIRE, PAULA BARNETT, MARSHA W. Z UMMO, JUAN CARLOS LO PEZ DE GARCIA, SARA ENGLISH, ANTONIO LOP EZ DE GARCIA, PETER EISCHEN, MARK CEGIELSKI, MARILYN SANDERS, TOM HOLY, ROBERT STARK, D.O., BETH STARK, MAUREEN HOLY, JACK E DWARDS, AND JULIE ED WARDS , Appellant s

V.

CHAPPELL HILL SERVIC E COMPANY, LLC AND H IGH MEADOWS LAND & CATTLE, LLC , Appellee s Appeal from the 21st District Court of W ashington County. (Tr. Ct. No. 35476 ).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on February 18, 2014. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds th at the trial court’s judgment contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that the appellants, George M. Bishop, Doug Bulcao, Senator John Whitmire, Paula Barnett, Marsha W. Zummo , Juan Carlos Lopez de Garcia, Sara English, Antonio Lopez de Garcia, Peter Eischen, Mark Cegielski, Marilyn Sanders, TomHoly, Robert Stark, D.O., Beth Stark, Maureen Holy, Jack Edwards, and Julie Edwards,

jointly and severally, pay all appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered July 30, 2015.

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale. Opinion delivered by Justice Keyes.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 99255 / December 29, 2023

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING 

File No. 3-20003

In the Matter of

Unikrn, Inc.,

Respondent.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO 

ENTER AN ORDER APPROVING OR 

DISAPPROVING PLAN OF 

DISTRIBUTION

On January 13, 2023, pursuant to Rule 1103 of the United States Securities and Exchange 

Commission’s Rules on Fair Fund and Disgorgement Plans (the “Commission’s Rules”), 

17 C.F.R.§ 201.1103, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Plan of Distribution and 

Opportunity to Comment (“Notice”)1for the distribution of monies placed into a Fair Fund in the 

above-captioned matter. The Notice invited public comment on the proposed plan of distribution 

(“Plan”) through February 13, 2023, and the Commission received three public comments that 

raised various issues (the “Comments”).

Rule 1104 of the Commission’s Rules, 17 C.F.R. § 201.1104, provides in relevant part, 

“[t]he order approving or disapproving the plan should be entered within 30 days after the end of 

the final period allowed for comments on the proposed plan unless the Commission or the 

hearing officer, by written order, allows a longer period for good cause shown.”

1

 Exchange Act Rel. No. 96665 (Jan. 13, 2023).
2

On March 1, 2023, the Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority, issued an order 

extending the time to enter an order approving or disapproving the Plan until July 13, 2023.2

On July 7, 2023, the Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority, issued an order extending 

the time to enter an order approving or disapproving the Plan until December 31, 2023.3

The Division now states additional time is needed to present its recommendation to the 

Commission regarding the Comments and the Plan, and therefore, good cause has been shown to 

enter an order extending time to approve or disapprove the Plan until March 15, 2024. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 1104 of the Commission’s Rules,4

for good cause shown, the time for entering an order approving or disapproving the Plan is 

extended to March 15, 2024.

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority.

Vanessa A. Countryman 

Secretary

2

 See Order Extending Time to Enter Order Approving or Disapproving Plan of Distribution, Exchange Act Rel. 

No. 97008 (Mar. 1, 2023).

3

 See Order Extending Time to Enter Order Approving or Disapproving Plan of Distribution, Exchange Act Rel. 

No. 97855 (July 7, 2023).

4

 17 C.F.R. § 201.1104.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

May 12, 2021

In the Matter of

Texas South Energy, Inc.,

File No. 500-1

ORDER OF SUSPENSION OF

TRADING

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Texas South Energy, Inc.

(“TXSO1”) (CIK No. 1506742), a defaulted Nevada corporation located in Houston, TX with a 

class of securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

("Exchange Act") Section 12(g) because it is delinquent in its periodic filings with the 

Commission, having not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period 

ended March 31, 2019. On December 17, 2020, the Commission’s Division of Corporation 

Finance (“Corporation Finance”) sent a delinquency letter to TXSO requesting compliance with 

its periodic filing requirements, which was delivered. As of April 1, 2021, the common stock of 

TXSO was quoted on OTC Link operated by OTC Markets Group Inc. (formerly “Pink Sheets”) 

(“OTC Link”), had six market makers, and was eligible for the “piggyback” exception of 

Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3). 

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors 

require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is 

ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the 

 

1 The short form of each issuer’s name is also its stock symbol.
2

securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on May 

13, 2021, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on May 26, 2021.

For the Commission, by the Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority.

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-36599, 33-61233, 33-61231, 33-21352, 2-98101 and 333-102132)
pertaining to the stock and other incentive plans of Grey Global Group Inc. of
our report dated February 26, 2003 on the consolidated financial statements of
Grey Global Group Inc. and consolidated subsidiary companies included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP

New York, New York
March 27, 2003