alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
628 S.E.2d 884

#### In the Matter of Harriett E. WILMETH, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 22, 2006.

ORDER

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel has filed a petition asking this Court to place respondent on interim suspension pursuant to Rule 17, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, and seeking the appointment of an attorney to protect respondent’s clients’ interests pursuant to Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. Respondent opposes the suspension.

IT IS ORDERED that respondent’s license to practice law in this state is suspended until further order of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that J. Anthony Floyd, Esquire, is hereby appointed to assume responsibility for respondent’s client files, trust account(s), escrow aecount(s), operating account(s), and any other law office account(s) respondent may maintain. Mr. Floyd shall take action as required by Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, to protect the interests of respondent’s clients. Mr. Floyd may make disbursements from respondent’s trust account(s), escrow account(s), operating account(s), and any other law office account(s) respondent may maintain that are necessary to effectuate this appointment.

This Order, when served on any bank or other financial institution maintaining trust, escrow and/or operating accounts of respondent, shall serve as an injunction to prevent respondent from making withdrawals from the aceount(s) and shall further serve as notice to the bank or other financial institution that J. Anthony Floyd, Esquire, has been duly appointed by this Court.

Finally, this Order, when served on any office of the United States Postal Service, shall serve as notice that J. Anthony Floyd, Esquire, has been duly appointed by this Court and has the authority to receive respondent’s mail and the authority to *174direct that respondent’s mail be delivered to Mr. Floyd’s office.

This appointment shall be for a period of no longer than nine months unless request is made to this Court for an extension.

/s/Jean H. Toal, C.J.

FOR THE COURT
ETH LANG-MIERS CE Order entered October , 2012

In The



## Court of appealo jriftb Oititrirt of Texao at 313atfao

No. 05-12-00963-CV CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, Appellant

V. ANTHONY ARREDONDO, ET AL, Appellee On Appeal from the 199th District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199-1743-99



### ORDER The Court has before it appellant's October 2, 2012 unopposed motion for second extension of time to file its brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS appellant to file its brief by November 1, 2012. No further extensions will be granted absent a showing of exceptional circumstances.
98-1519.

#### Sharwell v. Wimberly.

Cuyahoga App. No. 73299. On motion for stay. Motion denied.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A1321. JASON DAVID COOPER v. THE STATE.

In September 2000, Jason David Cooper pled guilty to three counts of child

molestation. He subsequently filed a motion for out-of-time appeal, which the trial

court denied. Cooper appealed the ruling, and this Court affirmed in an unpublished

opinion. See Cooper v. State, Case Number A08A0313, decided May 12, 2008.

Thereafter, Cooper filed a second motion for out-of-time appeal. The trial court

denied the motion, and Cooper filed this direct appeal.

“An out-of-time appeal is a judicial creation that serves as the remedy for a

frustrated right of appeal.” Richards v. State, 275 Ga. 190, 191 (563 SE2d 856)

(2002) (punctuation omitted). Because Cooper has already had a direct appeal, he is

not entitled to another out-of-time appeal. See Richards v. State, 275 Ga 190 (563

SE2d 856) (2002). Moreover, “[i]t is well established that any issue that was raised

and resolved in an earlier appeal is the law of the case and is binding on this Court,

and that the law of the case doctrine is not confined to civil cases, but applies also to

rulings made by appellate courts in criminal cases.” Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326,

327 (713 SE2d 438) (2011) (citation and punctuation omitted). For these reasons,

this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

April 21, 2016
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.

04/21/2016
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03- 07 -00 693 -CR

Cha d E. M alb ur g , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 07- 1237 -K 277 , HO NORAB LE KEN ANDERSO N , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Chad E. Ma lburg pled g uilty to the char g e of bur g lary

of a building and wa s sentenc ed to eig hteen months in a state jail. Appe llant’s appointed attorne y has fi l ed a brief concludingthat the appe al is frivolous and without merit.

Counsel’s brief me ets the re quirements ofAn de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by pr e se nti ng a pr of

e ssi on a l eva luatio n o f t

he re c or d a

nd de mon str a tin g that th e re are no argua ble g rounds to be adva

nced. Se e Pe ns on v . O hio , 4 88 U. S. 7 5, 80 (1 98 8) ; An de rs , 386 U.S. at 743-44; Hi gh v . S tat e , 573 S.W. 2d 80 7, 81 1- 13 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tat e , 516 S.W .2d 684, 68 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 74 ); Ga ino us v . S tat e , 436 S.W .2d 137, 138 (Tex. C ri m . Ap p . 1 969). Ap pe lla nt’ s atto rn e y

se nt a pp e lla nt a c op y of the br ie f a

nd adv is ed hi m tha t he ha d th e ri g ht t o examine the rec ord and f ile a pro se brief. S

e e A n d e rs , 38 6 U .S. a t 74 4; J

ac k so n v . S tat e , 485 S.W .2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). No pro se br ief ha s been f iled.No substitut e counsel will be appointed. Should appe llant w ish to seek f urther r eview of 1 his case by

the cour t of criminal appe als, he must either r etain an at t o rn ey t o fi l e a petition for discretionar

y revie w or file a pro se petition for discretionary revie w. See ge nerally Tex. R. App. P. 68-79 (g overningproce eding s in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals). An y p et i t ion for dis c re tio na

ry re vie w mus t be fi le d with in t hir ty da y s f ro m th e date of

e ith e r t his op ini on

or the date this Court overrules the last ti m ely motion for rehe aringfiled. See Tex. R. App. P . 68.2. The petition must be filed with this Court, a fter which it will be forwa rded to the court of c ri m inal appea ls a long with the rest of the filings in the c ause. See Tex. R. App. P . 68.3, 68.7. Any petition for discr etionary

revie w should comply

with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of

appellate proce dure. See Tex. R. App. P . 68.4, 68.5. 2

We h a ve c on sid e re d th e re c or d a nd c ouns e l’ s brie f a

nd a g re e that th e a

pp e a l is frivolous and without merit. We have r eviewe d th e ev i d ence prese nted to the trial cour t and the pr oc e dure s th a t w e re ob se rv e d a nd fi nd no thi ng in the re c or d tha t mig ht a rgua bly su pp or t th e a pp e a l. We gr ant counse l’s motion to wit hdrawand af firm the judg ment of convic tion. 1

_______________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and He nson Affir med Filed: Apr il 1, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2314
WILLIAM KWAME DOH, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A70-675-651) Submitted: July 28, 2006 Decided: August 3, 2006 Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Diane Kelleher, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: William Kwame Doh, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) order adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s decision denying the motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review. We do not have jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision not to sua sponte reopen proceedings. Ali v. Gonzales , 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir. 2006). In addition, we find the immigration judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (2005). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
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 Smith Barney Bristol Energy Fund L.P. (the‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jennifer Magro, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

|    |                                                                                                                                                         
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

/s/ Jennifer Magro
Jennifer Magro
Citigroup Managed Futures LLC
Chief Financial Officer and Director

Date: November 14, 2007

---
IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

Case No. 3:19md2885

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to: 

McCombs, 7:20cv94

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS ORDER NO. 6 

This Order addresses Plaintiff’s objections and counter-designations to 

Defendants’ affirmative deposition designations and Defendants’ objections to 

Plaintiff’s counter-designations thereto for the following witness depositions:

1. Davis, James

SO ORDERED, on this 24th day of May, 2021. 

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

Case 7:20-cv-00094-MCR-GRJ Document 143 Filed 05/24/21 Page 1 of 1
#### Leonard K. MILLEN, Trustee, Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Appellee. In the Matter of Walter C. SEABOYER, Bankrupt.

No. 4806.

United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.

March 11, 1954.

Morris Michelson, Boston, Mass., for appellant.

R. Gaynor Wellings, Boston, Mass., William F. Byrne and Tyler & Reynolds, Boston, Mass., on brief, for appellee.

Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The order of the District Court is affirmed on the memorandum of Judge. Wyzanski, reported sub nom. In re Seaboyer, 116 F.Supp. 780.
#### § 2500.018 Electronic submission.

Applicants and awardees are encouraged, but not required, to submit proposals and reports in electronic form as prescribed in the RFP issued by OAO and in the applicable award agreement.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 22, 2022

No. 04-22-00545-CR

Santos Javier LOPEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-0276-CR

, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED. Appellant’s 

brief was filed December 21, 2022.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

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

court on this 22nd day of December, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
2006-0745.

#### Wengerd v. Jeffreys.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus of Bruce Wengerd. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2275 

To treat payments by charitable organizations with respect to certain 

firefighters as exempt payments. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 6, 2013 

Ms. SLAUGHTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To treat payments by charitable organizations with respect 

to certain firefighters as exempt payments. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fallen Firefighters As5 sistance Tax Clarification Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PAYMENTS BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS WITH 

7 RESPECT TO CERTAIN FIREFIGHTERS TREAT8 ED AS EXEMPT PAYMENTS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of the Internal Rev10 enue Code of 1986, payments made on behalf of any firemstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2275 IH

1 fighter who died or was injured as a result of the ambush 

2 of firefighters responding to an emergency on December 

3 24, 2012, in Webster, New York, to any family member 

4 of such firefighter or aforementioned injured firefighters 

5 by an organization described in paragraph (1) or (2) of 

6 section 509(a) of such Code shall be treated as related 

7 to the purpose or function constituting the basis for such 

8 organization’s exemption under section 501 of such Code 

9 if such payments are made in good faith using a reason10 able and objective formula which is consistently applied. 

11 (b) APPLICATION.—Subsection (a) shall apply only to 

12 payments made on or after December 24, 2012, and be13 fore December 31, 2013. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6671

DERRELL M. HARRELL , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; JOSEPH P. BARON , Respondents

- Appellees , and UNKNOWN, Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. ( 1:18

- cv
- 01363

- TSE

- JFA )

Submitted : August 20, 2019 Decided: August 23, 2019

Before FLOYD and RUSHING, Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Derrell M. Harrell , Appellant Pro Se

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Derrell M. Harrell seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies

. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner
satis fies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2 003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harrell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argume nt would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2006-0847.

#### State v. Curran.

Clark App. No. 2005 CA 22, 2006-Ohio-773. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion granted.

Resnick, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.
**Exhibit31.1****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Stamatis V. Molaris, certify that:1) I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Quintana Maritime Limited.2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions); a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.     By:          /s/ Stamatis V. Molaris     Stamatis V. Molaris  Chief Executive Officer   Date: May 15, 2006
Exhibit 10.p

                Description of Director Compensation pursuant to
                    Item 601(b)(10)(iii)(A) of Regulation S-K

Directors of First Bancorp (the "Company") are paid a monthly retainer of $500.
In addition, the Company's directors receive a fee of $250 for each board
meeting they attend. Board meetings are normally held monthly. Directors who
serve on the Executive Committee, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee,
Audit Committee, or Compensation Committee also receive $250 for each committee
meeting they attend.

The Company's directors are also paid $250 for each board meeting of a Company
subsidiary they attend. All directors of the Company are members of the board of
directors of First Bank, the Company's most significant subsidiary. Various
combinations of six to nine directors of the Company serve on the boards of
Montgomery Data Services and First Bancorp Financial Services, subsidiaries of
the Company, and First Bank Insurance Services, a subsidiary of First Bank. The
boards of First Bank and Montgomery Data Services normally meet on a monthly
basis, and the First Bancorp Financial Services and First Bank Insurance
Services boards normally meet on a quarterly basis.

Non-employee directors of the Company also participate in the Company's stock
option plan. On June 1 of each year for the five-year period beginning June 1,
2004 and ending on June 1, 2009, each non-employee director of the Company
received or will receive an option to acquire 2,250 shares (as adjusted for the
November 2004 stock split) of the Company's common stock. The options have an
exercise price equal to the fair market value of such stock on the date of grant
and have a maximum term of 10 years.

In addition, the Company provides one of its directors, Mr. Jordan Washburn,
with approximately 100 square feet of office space, which Mr. Washburn uses
primarily in connection with his work with various charitable organizations.

Directors are also entitled to reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in
connection with attending bank educational conferences.