alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismissed and Memo randum Opinion filed December 1 2 , 2013.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 12

- 00751

- CV

YUSUF M. SULTAN , Appellant

V.
CA NEW PLAN FIXED RA TE PARTNERSHIP, L.P. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 157th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2010

- 46160



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from a judgment signed May 1 , 201 2

. The clerk’s record was filed October 10, 2012. The reporter’s record was filed February 7, 2013. This appeal was abated for sixty days and th e underlying dispute was referred to mediation. The appeal was subsequently reinstated, and the court ordered appellant to file his brief on or before August 16, 2013

. No brief or motion for extension of
time was filed.2

On October 22, 2013, this court i ssued an order stating that unless appellant
filed his brief with the clerk of this court on or before November 4, 2013 , the court
would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). Appellant filed no response.
Accordingly, th e appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices McCally, Busby, and Donovan

.
### Quicksilver deposits of southwestern Alaska a description of the quicksilver mines and prospects, with special emphasis on the structural controls of ore deposition

By: C.L. SainsburyE.M. MacKevett Jr.

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1187

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 8**                            (pdf) 
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Preliminary report on the quicksilver-antimony properties in the vicinity of Sleitmut, Georgetown district, southwestern Alaska(1944)                                    

                                        Quicksilver deposits in the DeCourcy Mountain area, Iditarod district, southwestern Alaska(1945)                                    

                                        Quicksilver deposit areas near Aleknagik, Nushagak district, southwestern Alaska(1952)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7424

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER EUGENE SUMNER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-02-393; CA-05-6-1) Submitted: August 4, 2006 Decided: August 24, 2006 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Eugene Sumner, Appellant Pro Se. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Christopher Eugene Sumner seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sumner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
§ 282.21 Plans, general. ( a ) - ( d ) [Reserved]
( e ) Leasehold activities shall be carried out with due regard to conservation of resources, paying particular attention to the wise management of OCS mineral resources, minimizing waste of the leased resource(s) in mining and processing, and preventing damage to unmined parts of the mineral deposit and other resources of the OCS.
§ 28.32 Proposed quality control plans; approval by MSHA. ( a ) Each proposed quality control plan submitted in accordance with this subpart shall be reviewed by MSHA to determine its effectiveness in insuring the quality of short-circuit protection provided by the fuse for which an approval is sought.
( b ) If MSHA determines that the proposed quality control plan submitted by the applicant will not insure adequate quality control, MSHA shall require the applicant to modify the procedures and testing requirements of the plan prior to approval of the plan and issuance of any certificate of approval.
( c ) Approved quality control plans shall constitute a part of and be incorporated into any certificate of approval issued by MSHA, and compliance with such plans by the applicant shall be a condition of approval.
### §1425e. Additional powers

Powers granted herein shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any powers granted by other law to, or for the benefit or assistance of, any public corporate authority.

(Pub. L. 88–171, §5, Nov. 4, 1963, 77 Stat. 304.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Organic Act of Guam which comprises this chapter.
§ 983.351 PHA payment to owner for occupied unit. ( a ) *When payments are made.* ( 1 ) During the term of the HAP contract, the PHA shall make housing assistance payments to the owner in accordance with the terms of the HAP contract. The payments shall be made for the months during which a contract unit is leased to and actually occupied by an eligible family.
( 2 ) Except for discretionary vacancy payments in accordance with § 983.352, the PHA may not make any housing assistance payment to the owner for any month after the month when the family moves out of the unit (even if household goods or property are left in the unit).
( b ) *Monthly payment.* Each month, the PHA shall make a housing assistance payment to the owner for each contract unit that complies with the HQS and is leased to and occupied by an eligible family in accordance with the HAP contract.
( c ) *Calculating amount of payment.* The monthly housing assistance payment by the PHA to the owner for a contract unit leased to a family is the rent to owner minus the tenant rent (total tenant payment minus the utility allowance).
( d ) *Prompt payment.* The housing assistance payment by the PHA to the owner under the HAP contract must be paid to the owner on or about the first day of the month for which payment is due, unless the owner and the PHA agree on a later date.
( e ) *Owner compliance with contract.* To receive housing assistance payments in accordance with the HAP contract, the owner must comply with all the provisions of the HAP contract. Unless the owner complies with all the provisions of the HAP contract, the owner does not have a right to receive housing assistance payments.
§ 3285.311 Required perimeter supports. ( a ) Perimeter pier or other supports must be located as follows: ( 1 ) On both sides of side wall exterior doors (such as entry, patio, and sliding glass doors) and any other side wall openings of 48 inches or greater in width, and under load-bearing porch posts, factory installed fireplaces, and fireplace stoves).
( 2 ) Other perimeter supports must be: ( i ) Located in accordance with Table 2 to § 3285.303; or
( ii ) Provided by other means such as additional outriggers or floor joists. When this alternative is used, the designs required by § 3285.301 must consider the additional loads in sizing the pier and footing supports under the main chassis beam.
( b ) For roof live loads of 40 psf or greater, a professional engineer or architect must determine the maximum sidewall opening permitted without perimeter pier or other supports.
( c ) The location and installation of any perimeter pier support must not take the home out of compliance with the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (part 3280 of this chapter).
Exhibit
4.1


 


Advisors
Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


 


November
21, 2022


 


Advisors
Disciplined Trust 2140


c/o
The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


240
Greenwich Street, 22W Floor


New
York, NY 10286


 


Re:
Advisors Disciplined Trust 2140 (the “Fund”)


 


Ladies
and Gentlemen:


 


We
have examined the Registration Statement File No. 333-266970 for the above captioned Fund. We hereby consent to the use in the
Registration Statement of the references to Advisors Asset Management, Inc. as evaluator.


 


You
are hereby authorized to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


		Very
         truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	Advisors
                                         Asset Management, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	By	/s/
                                         ALEX R. MEITZNER
	 	 	Alex
                                         R. Meitzner
	 	 	Senior
                                         Vice President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner

v.

MANRICO A. T R ONCELLITI, JR.,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 2895 D isciplinary Docket No.3

No. 84 DB 2022

Attorney Registration No. 31545

(Montgomery County)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1 st day of July , 2022

, the Joint Petition for Emergency Temporary

Suspension Pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(f) is GRANTED . It is further provided that:

1. Manrico A. Troncelliti, Jr. (“Respondent”) is placed on temporary suspension until

further definitive action by this Court;

2. Respondent shall comply with all provision of Pa.R.D.E. 217;

3. The President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery Co unty shall

enter such orders as may be necessary to protect the rights of Respondent’s

clients or fiduciary entities with which he is involved, see Pa.R.D.E. 217(g); and

4. All financial in stitutions in which Respondent holds fiduciary funds shall freeze

such accounts pending further action by a court of appropriate jurisdiction.

Respondent’s rights to petition for dissolution or amendment of this Order and to

request accelerated disposition of charges underlying this Order pursuant to Pa.R.D. E

.

208(f)(6) are specifically preserved.

This Order constitutes an imposition of public discipline within the meaning of

Pa.R.D.E. 402 pertaining to confidentiality.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Radale Imports, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or
about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ken Swanson, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  February
20, 2009





/s/
      Ken SwansonKen
      SwansonChief
      Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Radale Imports, Inc. and will be retained by Radale Imports, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.


Exhibit
32.2
 Page
1 of 1 Page
### **CHAPTER 14—MAKING OPPORTUNITIES FOR BROADBAND INVESTMENT AND LIMITING EXCESSIVE AND NEEDLESS OBSTACLES TO WIRELESS**

Sec.
1501.
Definitions.
1502.
Identifying 255 megahertz.
1503.
Millimeter wave spectrum.
1504.
Broadband infrastructure deployment.
1505.
Unlicensed services in guard bands.
1506.
Rulemaking related to partitioning or disaggregating licenses.
1507.
Unlicensed spectrum policy.
1508.
National plan for unlicensed spectrum.
1509.
Spectrum Challenge Prize.
1510.
Wireless telecommunications tax and fee collection fairness.
1511.
Rules of construction.
1512.
Relationship to Middle Class tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.
1513.
No additional funds authorized.
#### In the Matter of Diane N.-J., Petitioner, v Peter J. Rosato et al., Respondents. Jennifer J. et al., Nonparty Appellants.

[835 NYS2d 322]—

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition and mandamus, inter alia, to prohibit the enforcement of an order issued by the respondent, Justice Peter J. Rosato, dated August 2, 2006, which referred the matter known as *Matter of the Appointment of a Guardian under Article 81 for James Joseph J., Sr., a Person Alleged to be Incapacitated,*pending in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, under index No. 13877/ 06, to a Special Referee, Colleen Lundwall, Esq., and to direct a hearing de novo before a Justice of the Supreme Court, Westchester County.

*864Adjudged that the petition is granted to the extent of prohibiting the enforcement of the order dated August 2, 2006, and directing that the matter known as *Matter of the Appointment of a Guardian under Article 81 for James Joseph J., Sr., a Person Alleged to he Incapacitated,*pending in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, under index No. 13877/06, be heard de novo before a justice of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, with such hearing to be held as expeditiously as possible to determine the issues raised in the underlying petition pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81; the petition is otherwise denied, without costs or disbursements, and the proceeding is otherwise dismissed.

The Supreme Court exceeded its authority in permitting the referee to hear and report on the issues raised in the underlying petition pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 for the appointment of a guardian *(see Matter of Levy v Davis,*302 AD2d 309, 311-312 [2003]). The underlying article 81 petition was filed by the daughter of the alleged incapacitated person (hereinafter the AIP). Although the petitioner in this proceeding— who is the wife of the AIP—initially consented to the referral, she later withdrew her consent when she challenged the daughter’s petition and filed a cross petition seeking to have herself appointed as guardian. The issue of which party is the more appropriate guardian is sharply contested, and the AIP’s capacity to express a preference as to the choice of a guardian remains to be determined. Under these circumstances, the relevant witnesses, including the Aip should be observed firsthand by a Justice rather than by a referee *(see Matter of Levy v Davis,*supra; Law Revision Commission Comments, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 34A, Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11, at 148-149). We therefore find that the petitioner established a clear legal right to have the contested underlying petition pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 heard de novo by a justice of the Supreme Court *(see Matter of Holtzman v Goldman,*71 NY2d 564, 569-570 [1988]; *Matter of Rush v Mordue,*68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]).

Accordingly, the petition is granted to the extent indicated. The remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-8057

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EDWARD ALLEN PINEIRO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (CR-97-39, CA-00-341-7)

Submitted: May 9, 2002 Decided: May 29, 2002

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Allen Pineiro, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Edward Allen Pineiro seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his

“Motion to include New ruling addressing breach of plea agreement

by non-fulfillment of promise.” Our review of this case reveals

that this claim previously was raised by Pineiro and rejected by

this court in review of Pineiro’s appeal of the denial of his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001), in United

States v. Pineiro, No. 01-6981 (4th Cir. Dec. 18, 2001)

(unpublished). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
#### DOLFINI, Appellant, v. ERIE R. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 24, 1905.)

Action by Peter D. Dolfini against the Erie Railroad Company. No opinion. Judgment and order *1121unanimously affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Dolfini v. Erie Railroad Company, 178 N. Y. 1, 70 N. E. 68.
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Lawrence E. Kreider, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. (the“Company”), pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify asfollows:1. The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2007 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and2. The information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Certification this 13th day of March 2008.              /s/LAWRENCE E. KREIDER, JR.   Lawrence E. Kreider, Jr.   Chief Financial Officer
### §1682. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Oct. 5, 1992, Pub. L. 102–381, title I, 106 Stat. 1393, which authorized government of Trust Territory of Pacific Islands to make purchases through General Services Administration, was from the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993, and was not repeated in subsequent appropriation acts. See section 1469e of this title. Similar provisions were contained in the following prior appropriation acts:

Nov. 13, 1991, Pub. L. 102–154, title I, 105 Stat. 1008.

Nov. 5, 1990, Pub. L. 101–512, title I, 104 Stat. 1933.

Oct. 23, 1989, Pub. L. 101–121, title I, 103 Stat. 717.

Sept. 27, 1988, Pub. L. 100–446, title I, 102 Stat. 1797.

Dec. 22, 1987, Pub. L. 100–202, §101(g) [title I], 101 Stat. 1329–213, 1329–232.

Oct. 18, 1986, Pub. L. 99–500, §101(h) [title I], 100 Stat. 1783–242, 1783–258, and Oct. 30, 1986, Pub. L. 99–591, §101(h) [title I], 100 Stat. 3341–242, 3341–259.

Dec. 19, 1985, Pub. L. 99–190, §101(d) [title I], 99 Stat. 1224, 1239.

Oct. 12, 1984, Pub. L. 98–473, title I, §101(c) [title I], 98 Stat. 1837, 1851.

Nov. 4, 1983, Pub. L. 98–146, title I, 97 Stat. 932.

Dec. 30, 1982, Pub. L. 97–394, title I, 96 Stat. 1979.

Dec. 23, 1981, Pub. L. 97–100, title I, 95 Stat. 1402.

Dec. 12, 1980, Pub. L. 96–514, title I, 94 Stat. 2969.

Nov. 27, 1979, Pub. L. 96–126, title I, 93 Stat. 966.

Oct. 17, 1978, Pub. L. 95–465, title I, 92 Stat. 1289.

July 26, 1977, Pub. L. 95–74, title I, 91 Stat. 295.

July 31, 1976, Pub. L. 94–373, title I, 90 Stat. 1053.

Dec. 23, 1975, Pub. L. 94–165, title I, 89 Stat. 988.

Aug. 31, 1974, Pub. L. 93–404, title I, 88 Stat. 813.

Oct. 4, 1973, Pub. L. 93–120, title I, 87 Stat. 434.

Aug. 10, 1972, Pub. L. 92–369, title I, 86 Stat. 513.

Aug. 10, 1971, Pub. L. 92–76, title I, 85 Stat. 233.

July 31, 1970, Pub. L. 91–361, title I, 84 Stat. 673.

Oct. 29, 1969, Pub. L. 91–98, title I, 83 Stat. 152.

July 26, 1968, Pub. L. 90–425, title I, 82 Stat. 430.

June 24, 1967, Pub. L. 90–28, title I, 81 Stat. 63.

May 31, 1966, Pub. L. 89–435, title I, 80 Stat. 174.

June 28, 1965, Pub. L. 89–52, title I, 79 Stat. 179.

July 7, 1964, Pub. L. 88–356, title I, 78 Stat. 278.

July 26, 1963, Pub. L. 88–79, title I, 77 Stat. 102.

Aug. 9, 1962, Pub. L. 87–578, title I, 76 Stat. 340.

Aug. 3, 1961, Pub. L. 87–122, title I, 75 Stat. 251.

May 13, 1960, Pub. L. 86–455, title I, 74 Stat. 112.

June 23, 1959, Pub. L. 86–60, title I, 73 Stat. 101.

June 4, 1958, Pub. L. 85–439, title I, 72 Stat. 164.

July 1, 1957, Pub. L. 85–77, title I, 71 Stat. 266.

June 13, 1956, ch. 380, title I, 70 Stat. 265.

June 16, 1955, ch. 147, title I, 69 Stat. 149.

July 1, 1954, ch. 446, title I, 68 Stat. 372.

July 31, 1953, ch. 298, title I, 67 Stat. 273.

July 9, 1952, ch. 597, title I, 66 Stat. 458.

Aug. 31, 1951, ch. 375, title I, 65 Stat. 263.