alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Daniel B. Edelman, an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.

First Department,

June 28, 1962.

*522
      *Eric Nightingale (Michael Franck*with him on the brief), attorney for petitioner.

*Per Curiam.*

Respondent was admitted to the Bar in the Second Department in December, 1945. A Referee has found that three charges of professional misconduct lodged against respondent have been sustained. The first two charges involve, respectively, the neglect of claims of two clients seeking damages for personal injuries, and the ignoring of requests for information as to the status of the matters. The third charge concerns the omission to answer inquiries of the Committee on Grievances of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York for information concerning the foregoing matters.

Our review of the record convinces us that the evidence sustains the findings and report of the Referee and we agree with the conclusion of the Referee that respondent’s conduct *“*evinces either a shocking ignorance, or a callous disregard, of the obligations of an attorney to his clients, and his disregard of the letters received by him from the Grievance Committee is * * * inexcusable ’ ’. The report of the Referee is confirmed.

The same indifference and laxity which respondent displayed in regard to his clients’ causes and the requests from the Grievance Committee were repeated when respondent failed to file any brief before the Referee — after having requested and obtained time to do so — and when respondent submitted no answering papers in this court on the motion to confirm the Referee’s report.

Respondent’s inexcusable neglect of his clients’ causes constituted professional misconduct *(Matter of Satz,*16 A D 2d 275; *Matter of Maness,*7 A D 2d 122; *Matter of Shelton,*7 A D 2d 135; *Matter of Porcella,*241 App. Div. 344; *Matter of Gerety,*240 App. Div. 496).

*523Respondent’s disregard of the inquiries by the Grievance Committee made matters worse. Moreover, respondent’s failure to submit any papers in opposition to the motion to confirm the' Referee’s report demonstrates an *“*indifference to the consequences of an adverse determination ”. (See *Matter of Schner,*5 A D 2d 599, 600; *Matter of Bennett,*16 A D 2d 129.)

Under all of the circumstances, respondent should be suspended for a period of two years.

Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended for a period of two years.
# C_2008037EN.01002201.xml

| 9.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/22

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2007 — Schering-Plough Ltd v Commission and EMEA

(Case T-133/03) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Partial inadmissibility - Interest in bringing proceedings - Application devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2008/C 37/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Schering-Plough Ltd (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Berrisch and P. Bogaert, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendants: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and M. Shotter, acting as Agents) European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA), (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: initially by N. Khan, acting as Agent, and C. Sherliker, solicitor, and subsequently by C. Sherliker, solicitor, and T. Eicke, Barrister)

Defendants:

Intervener in support of the applicant: European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), established in Geneva (Switzerland), (represented by: N. Rampal, U. Zinsmeister and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Re:

Action for the annulment of the EMEA measure of 14 February 2003 refusing a ‘Type 1’ variation of the name of the pharmaceutical form ‘oral lyophilisat’ from ‘Allex 5 mg oral lyophilisate’ to ‘Allex Reditabs 5 mg oral lyophilisate’.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA).

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it is directed against the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it is directed against the Commission.

| 3. | The EMEA shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The EMEA shall bear its own costs.

| 4. | Schering-Plough Ltd shall pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Schering-Plough Ltd shall pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 19.7.2003.

1

---
#### § 942.815 Performance standards—Coal exploration.

Part 815 of this chapter, *Permanent Program Performance Standards—Coal Exploration,* shall apply to any person who conducts coal exploration.
#### § 1602.16 MEPS.

A Military Entrance Processing Station is a military installation to which registrants are ordered to report for examination or induction.
#### § 1621.2 Duty to report for and submit to induction.

When the Director of Selective Service orders a registrant for induction, it shall be the duty of the registrant to report for and submit to induction at the time and place ordered unless the order has been canceled. If the time when the registrant is ordered to report for induction is postponed, it shall be the continuing duty of the registrant to report for and submit to induction at such time and place as he may be reordered. Regardless of the time when or the circumstances under which a registrant fails to report for induction when it is his duty to do so, it shall thereafter be his continuing duty from day to day to report for and submit to induction at the place specified in the order to report for induction.

[47 FR 4648, Feb. 1, 1982]
FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 9/2/2015 1:26:28 PM PAM ESTES Clerk
## NUMBER 13 - 2 4 - 00 027 - CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

NAHESI PARMES , Appellant ,
v. FIRST CENTRAL CREDIT UNION , Appellee

.

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

of McLennan C ounty, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Tijerina, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina
On December 1 , 2023, a ppellant Nahesi Parmes filed a pro se notice of appeal from an order granting summary judgment in trial court cause number 20221073CV1

. 1
On December 1 , 2023, the Clerk of the Court requested appellant to pay the $205.00

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Tenth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001.2

filing fee within ten days. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5 ( “ A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay

— at the time an item is presented for filing

— whatever fees are required by stat ute or Supreme Court order. The appellate court may enforce this rule by any order that is just. ” ); T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 51.207 (delineating the required fees and costs in an appellate court). On December 21 , 202 3 , the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the filing fee was past due and informed him that the appeal would be dismissed if the filing fee was not paid

. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c). On January 19 , 202 4 , the Clerk again advised appellant
that the filing fee was past due and informed him that the appeal would be dismissed if the filing fee was not paid. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c). To date, appellant has neither paid the filing fee for the appeal nor responded to the Clerk of the Court’s notices

. This Court has the authority to dismiss an appeal because the appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules, a court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See
id. R. 42.3(b), (c); Smith v. DC Civil Constr., LLC , 521 S.W.3d 75, 76 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2017, no pet.). Here, appellant has not paid the appellate filing fee and has not otherwise responded to the Clerk’s notices

. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. Se e T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(b), (c).
JAIME TIJERINA Justice Delivered and filed on the 7th day of March , 202 4

.
§ 1660.7 Procedures—authorities. ( a ) In response to a litigation request or demand, and after any required coordination with the Department of Justice, the SSS GC and other SSS legal advisor (see § 1660.3) are authorized to: ( 1 ) Determine whether the respective SSS Components may release official information originated by or in the custody of such components.
( 2 ) Determine whether personnel assigned to, detailed to, or affiliated with the respective SSS Components may be contacted, interviewed, or used as witnesses concerning official information or, in exceptional circumstances, as expert witnesses.
( 3 ) Impose conditions or limitations on disclosures approved pursuant to this paragraph (a) (*e.g.,* approve the release of official information only to a Federal judge for in-camera review).
( 4 ) Assert claims of privilege or protection before any court.
( b ) The SSS GC may assume primary responsibility for responding to any litigation request or demand.
#### § 111.2 Applicability.

This part applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DoD), the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities in the DoD.
### §13124. Rules and regulations

In promulgating rules and regulations pertaining to financial disclosure, conflict of interest, and ethics in the executive branch, the Director shall issue rules and regulations in accordance with chapter 5 of this title. Any person may seek judicial review of any such rule or regulation.

(Pub. L. 117–286, §3(c), Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4302.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 13124 | 5 U.S.C. App. (EGA §404) | Pub. L. 95–521, title IV, §404, Oct. 26, 1978, 92 Stat. 1863; Pub. L. 98–150, §3(c), Nov. 11, 1983, 97 Stat. 960. |

Section
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


 The undersigned  hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Annual
Report of United States  Basketball  League,  Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the annual
period ended February 29, 2004 fully complies with the  requirements  of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that the  information
contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB  fairly  presents in all material
respects the  financial  condition  and results of  operation  of United  States
Basketball League, Inc.

Date: June 16, 2004


/s/ Daniel T. Meisenheimer, III
---------------------------------
Daniel T. Meisenheimer, III
President

Date: June 16, 2004


/s/ Richard C. Meisenheimer
---------------------------------
Richard C. Meisenheimer
Chief Financial Officer
#### § 57.8528 Unventilated areas.

Unventilated areas shall be sealed, or barricaded and posted against entry.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                                  Certification
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
        (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
                               United States Code)

   Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of Gristede's Foods, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 31, 2003
(the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:            October 31, 2003
                                             /s/ John A. Catsimatidis

                                           Name: John A. Catsimatidis
                                                 Chief Executive Officer


Dated:            October 31, 2003
                                             /s/ Kishore Lall

                                           Name: Kishore Lall
                                                 Executive Vice President and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

   The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of
Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

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


                                       26
#### § 1630.31 Class 3-A-S: Registrant deferred because of hardship to dependents (separated).

Any registrant who has been separated from active military service by reason of dependency or hardship shall be placed in Class 3-A-S unless his period of military service qualifies him for Class 4-A or 1-D-E. No registrant shall be retained in Class 3-A-S for more than six months.

[52 FR 24456, July 1, 1987]
§ 1645.3 Basis for classification in Class 4-D. In accordance with part 1630 of this chapter any registrant shall be placed in Class 4-D who is a: ( a ) Duly ordained minister of religion; or
( b ) Regular minister of religion.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 15, 2022

No. 04-22-00061-CR

Edison CARRAMAN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-CR-6386

Honorable Melisa C. Skinner, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due July 13, 2022. On July 13, 2022, appellant filed a 

motion requesting an extension of time to file his brief until September 12, 2022. After 

consideration, we GRANT IN PART the motion and ORDER appellant to file his brief by 

August 12, 2022.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of July, 2022.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
#### § 57.15001 First aid materials.

Adequate first-aid materials, including stretchers and blankets shall be provided at places convenient to all working areas. Water or neutralizing agents shall be available where corrosive chemicals or other harmful substances are stored, handled, or used.
§ 1630.12 Class 1-C: Member of the Armed Forces of the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the Public Health Service. In Class 1-C shall be placed: ( a ) Every registrant who is or who becomes by enlistment or appointment, a commissioned officer, a warrant officer, a pay clerk, an enlisted man or an aviation cadet of the Regular Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the Public Health Service.
( b ) Every registrant who is a cadet, United States Military Academy; or midshipman, United States Naval Academy; or a cadet, United States Air Force Academy; or cadet, United States Coast Guard Academy.
( c ) Every registrant who by induction becomes a member of the Army of the United States, the United States Navy, the United States Marine Corps, the Air Force of the United States, or the United States Coast Guard.
( d ) Exclusive of periods for training only, every registrant who is a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces and is on active duty, and every member of the reserve of the Public Health Service on active duty and assigned to staff the various offices and bureaus of the Public Health Service including the National Institutes of Health, or assigned to the Coast Guard, the Bureau of Prisons of the Department of Justice, Environmental Protection Agency, or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or who are assigned to assist Indian tribes, groups, bands, or communities pursuant to the Act of August 5, 1954 (68 Stat. 674), as amended.
#### Robert C. Walsh, Respondent, v. Adolph H. Knodel et al., Appellants.

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Court setting aside the verdict of a jury in favor of defendant for no cause of action in an automobile negligence action, and granting a new trial.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
#### § 910.707 Exemption for coal extraction incident to government-financed highway or other construction.

Part 707 of this chapter, *Exemption for Coal Extraction Incidental to Government-Financed Highway or Other Construction,* shall apply to surface coal mining and reclamation operations.
### §200309. Contracts for options to acquire land and water in System

The Secretary may enter into contracts for options to acquire land, water, or interests in land or water within the exterior boundaries of any area the acquisition of which is authorized by law for inclusion in the System. The minimum period of any such option shall be 2 years, and any sums expended for the purchase of an option shall be credited to the purchase price of the area. Not more than $500,000 of the sum authorized to be appropriated from the Fund by section 200303 of this title may be expended by the Secretary in any one fiscal year for the options.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3179.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 200309 | 16 U.S.C. 460l–10b. | Pub. L. 88–578, title I, §10, formerly §9, as added Pub. L. 90–401, §4, July 15, 1968, 82 Stat. 355; renumbered §10, Pub. L. 92–347, §2, July 11, 1972, 86 Stat. 459. |

Section
#### Barbara A. Sessa, an Infant, by Her Guardian ad Litem, Salvatore Sessa, Jr., et al., Respondents, v. Ralph Zinno, Appellant.

Motion by defendant Zinno for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
§ 921.772 Requirements for coal exploration. ( a ) Part 772 of this chapter, *Requirements for Coal Exploration,* shall apply to any person who conducts or seeks to conduct coal exploration operations.
( b ) The Office shall make every effort to act on an exploration application within 60 days of receipt or such longer time as may be reasonable under the circumstances. If additional time is needed, OSMRE shall notify the applicant that the application is being reviewed, but more time is necessary to complete such review, setting forth the reasons and the additional time that is needed.
[52 FR 13809, Apr. 24, 1987]
§ 884.14 State reclamation plan approval. ( a ) The Director shall act upon a State reclamation plan within 90 days after submittal. A State reclamation plan shall not be approved until the Director has— ( 1 ) Held a public hearing on the plan within the State which submitted it, or made a finding that the State provided adequate notice and opportunity for public comment in the development of the plan;
( 2 ) Solicited and considered the views of other Federal agencies having an interest in plan;
( 3 ) Determined that the State has the legal authority, policies, and administrative structure necessary to carry out the proposed plan;
( 4 ) Determined that the proposed plan meets all the requirements of this subchapter;
( 5 ) Determined that the State has an approved State regulatory program; and
( 6 ) Determined that the proposed plan is in compliance with all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations.
( b ) If the Director disapproves a proposed State reclamation plan, the Director shall advise the State in writing of the reasons for disapproval. The State may submit a revised proposed State reclamation plan at any time under the procedures of this section.
§ 925.12 State program provisions and amendments disapproved. ( a ) The amendment at 10 CSR 40-4.030(4)(A), submitted on December 14 and 18, 1987, is disapproved insofar as it would exempt from prime farmland performance standards coal preparation plants, support facilities, and roads associated with surface coal mining activities.
( b ) The amendment at 10 CSR 40-4.030(4)(B), submitted on December 14 and 18, 1987, is disapproved insofar as it would exempt from prime farmland performance standards water bodies as a postmining land use.
( c ) The definitions of “coal processing plant” and “coal preparation plant” at 10 CSR 40-8.010(1)(A)18, submitted on December 14 and 18, 1987, are disapproved insofar as they exempt from regulation certain facilities where coal is subjected to chemical or physical processing or cleaning, concentrating, or other processing or preparation, if they do not separate coal from its impurities.
( d ) The amendments at 10 CSR 40-3.040(10)(O)3.C and 40-3.200(10)(O)3.C, submitted on October 5, 2000, concerning temporary impoundment design are disapproved effective May 9, 2001.
( e ) The amendment at 10 CSR 40-3.240, submitted on October 5, 2000, concerning air resource protection is disapproved effective May 9, 2001, to the extent that it is missing pertinent requirements relating to control of erosion and air pollution.
( f ) The amendment at 10 CSR 40-8.070(2)(C)1.A(II)(a), submitted on October 5, 2000, concerning the definition of cumulative measurement period is disapproved effective May 9, 2001, to the extent that it uses October 1, 1990, for determining the end of the period for which cumulative production and revenue is reported.
[53 FR 43869, Oct. 31, 1988, as amended at 66 FR 23604, May 9, 2001]
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1073 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to deny the privilege 

of admission to the Hall of the House to former Members who have 

been expelled from the House. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2024 

Mr. TORRES of New York submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

deny the privilege of admission to the Hall of the House 

to former Members who have been expelled from the 

House. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

3 This resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Getting Expelled 

4 Officially Revokes Guaranteed Entry Resolution’’ or the 

5 ‘‘GEORGE Resolution’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1073 IH 

1 SEC. 2. DENYING ADMISSION TO HALL OF THE HOUSE TO 

2 FORMER MEMBERS WHO HAVE BEEN EX3 PELLED. 

4 Clause 4(a) of rule IV of the Rules of the House of 

5 Representatives is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph 

7 (3); 

8 (2) by striking the period at the end of sub9 paragraph (4) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub11 paragraph: 

12 ‘‘(5) has been expelled from the House.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
No. 8026.

#### Sater et al. *v.*Robbins et al.

(Decided November 24, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

*Mr. Milton Sater*and *Messrs. Follett, Kelley & Follett,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Paxton & Warrington,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.