alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION * IN THE 

OF MARYLAND

 * COURT OF APPEALS

 * OF MARYLAND

v. 

* Misc. Docket AG No. 104

 

ALI HERISCHI * September Term, 2019

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Joint Petition for Reprimand by Consent filed by the 

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and the Respondent, Ali Herischi, it is this 

22nd day of June, 2020,

ORDERED, that the Respondent, Ali Herischi, be and he hereby is, reprimanded 

for violating Rules 1.4, 1.7, and 8.4(d) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct.

 /s/ Robert N. McDonald

 Senior Judge
Editorial Note on Part 26
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 26 appear at 87 FR 71455, Nov. 22, 2022.

§ 26.401 General. ( a ) At the licensee's or other entity's discretion, a licensee or other entity in § 26.3(c) may establish, implement, and maintain an FFD program that meets the requirements of this subpart to apply to the individuals specified in § 26.4(f). If a licensee or other entity in § 26.3(c) does not elect to implement an FFD program that meets the requirements of this subpart, the individuals specified in § 26.4(f) shall be subject to an FFD program that meets the requirements of subparts A through H, N, and O of this part.
( b ) Entities who intend to implement an FFD program under this subpart shall submit a description of the FFD program and its implementation as part of the license, permit, or limited work authorization application.
( c ) Nothing in this subpart prohibits the licensees and other entities in § 26.3(c) from subjecting the individuals in § 26.4(f) to an FFD program that meets all of the requirements of this part or FFD program elements that meet all of the applicable requirements of this part.
exhibit1046.htm


    EXHIBIT
10.46

    


    FOURTH
AMENDMENT TO

    ST.
MARY LAND & EXPLORATION COMPANY

    EMPLOYEE
STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

    


    This
document shall constitute the Fourth Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the St. Mary
Land & Exploration Company Employee Stock Purchase Plan dated effective
January 1, 1998, and adopted by the Board of Directors of St. Mary Land &
Exploration Company on September 18, 1997, as previously amended (the
“Plan”).

     

    Pursuant
to Article XIII of the Plan, the Board of Directors may at any time and from
time to time amend or modify the Plan, provided that such amendment or
modification does not adversely affect any outstanding Option under the
Plan.  The Board of Directors hereby amends the Plan as
follows:

     

    1.   Section
3.3 of the Plan is amended to read as follows:

    


    3.3         
Restrictions on Participation.  Notwithstanding any provisions of the
Plan to the contrary, no Employee shall be granted an Option

    


    (a) if,
immediately after the grant, such employee would own Stock or hold outstanding
Options to purchase Stock possessing 5% or more of the total combined voting
power or value of all classes of stock of the Company (for purposes of this
paragraph, the rules of Section 424(d) of the Code shall apply in determining
stock ownership of any Employee),

    


    (b) which
permits his rights to purchase Stock under all employee stock purchase plans of
the Company to accrue at a rate which exceeds $25,000 in fair market value of
the Stock (determined at the time such option is granted) for each calendar year
in which such Option is outstanding, or

    


    (c) which
permits an Employee to purchase in excess of 2,500 shares in such
Offering.

    


    2.    This Fourth
Amendment shall be effective immediately with respect to all Offerings under the
Plan commencing on or after January 1, 2010.

    


    3.   In all
other respects, the Plan is republished and reaffirmed.  Capitalized
terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms
in the Plan.

    


    This
Fourth Amendment to the Plan was adopted by the Compensation Committee of the
Board of Directors on December 29, 2009, and approved by the Board of Directors
of St. Mary Land & Exploration Company on December 30, 2009.

     

    ST. MARY
LAND & EXPLORATION COMPANY

    


    


    By:       /s/ JOHN
MONARK                                                         

    John Monark,

    Vice President Human
Resources
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10539 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RON ASHLEY BEMBRY, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:03-CR-329-8

-------------------- Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ron Ashley Bembry raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Scroggins , 411 F.3d 572, 576-77 (5th Cir. 2005), which held that the Due Process Clause does not bar the application of Justice Breyer’s remedy opinion in United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), when resentencing defendants in light of Booker
. Bembry also raises arguments with respect to the appeal waiver in this case that are foreclosed by United States v. Cortez , 413No. 05-10539 -2- F.3d 502, 503 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 502 (2005), and United States v. Bond , 414 F.3d 542, 545-46 (5th Cir. 2005). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Subpart 1817.2—Options

Parent topic: PART 1817—SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS

1817.208 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

(NASA supplements paragraph (c))

(c)(3) The contracting officer shall insert a provision substantially the same as FAR 52.217–5 in cost

reimbursement contracts when the other conditions of FAR 17.208(c) are met.
(May 7, 1970)

#### In the Matter of the Claim of Anthony Palmigiano, Jr., Appellant, v. Equitable Paper Bag Co. et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Motion, insofar as it seeks permission to proceed upon one typewritten copy of the record and six typewritten copies of the brief and appendix, granted, and in all other respects denied, without costs. Upon this appeal our review is limited to the question whether the board’s action was arbitrary and capricious. *(Matter of Fairbanks*v. *Brewer-Titchener Corp.,*25 A D 2d 583.) Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur.
§ 217.36 Changes or cancellations of priority ratings and rated orders. ( a ) The priority rating on a rated order may be changed or canceled by: ( 1 ) An official action of the Department of Energy; or
( 2 ) Written notification from the person who placed the rated order.
( b ) If an unrated order is amended so as to make it a rated order, or a DO rating is changed to a DX rating, the supplier must give the appropriate preferential treatment to the order as of the date the change is received by the supplier.
( c ) An amendment to a rated order that significantly alters a supplier's original production or delivery schedule shall constitute a new rated order as of the date of its receipt. The supplier must accept or reject the amended order according to the provisions of § 217.33.
( d ) The following amendments do not constitute a new rated order: a change in shipping destination; a reduction in the total amount of the order; an increase in the total amount of the order which has negligible impact upon deliveries; a minor variation in size or design; or a change which is agreed upon between the supplier and the customer.
( e ) If a person no longer needs items or services to fill a rated order, any rated orders placed with suppliers for the items or services, or the priority rating on those orders, must be canceled.
( f ) When a priority rating is added to an unrated order, or is changed or canceled, all suppliers must be promptly notified in writing.
AFS-14-013-E

November 22, 2013

 Exemption No.10896

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0925

Ms. Amanda Sura

Parent of Aaron Sura

175 Steelhammer Road

Silverton, OR 97381

Dear Ms. Sura:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter received October 24, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Aaron Sura for an exemption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Aaron to 

exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system (CAReS, 

manufactured by AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard 

a United States (U.S.) aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Aaron.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that numerous people with physical challenges had previously completed flights using 

restraint systems that addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security 

in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the 
2

petition, if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by 

persons with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9834;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9834 also 

apply to the situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Aaron Sura an exemption from § 121.311(b). In addition, 

any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Aaron is aboard its 

aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent necessary to allow 

him to use an FAA-approved CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Aaron’s parents or 

a caregiver accompanying him. Aaron Sura may only occupy a passenger seat with no 

passenger seated behind him. In addition, Aaron’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of 

this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours 

before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on November 30, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

Enclosure
PGI Part 205 - PUBLICIZING CONTRACT

ACTIONS

PGI 205.2 -SYNOPSES OF PROPOSED CONTRACT ACTIONS

PGI 205.205 Special situations.

PGI 205.207 Preparation and transmittal of synopses.

Parent topic: PGI Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

PGI 205.2 -SYNOPSES OF PROPOSED CONTRACT ACTIONS

PGI 205.205 Special situations.

(h) Notice regarding timely definitization of equitable adjustments for change orders under

construction contracts. To obtain definitization data for requests for equitable adjustment to include

in solicitations for construction contracts, access the PALT/Protest/REA Tracker module in the

Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) website at https://piee.eb.mil. Search the

PALT/Protest/REA Tracker for the applicable military department or defense agency data and—

(i) If data exists, download the table and include it as an attachment to the solicitation notice in the

Governmentwide point of entry (GPE); or

(ii) If no data exists, then include the following statement in the Description section of the

solicitation notice: “No data is available regarding the timely definitization of equitable adjustments

for change orders under construction contracts.” (See PGI 236.211(b)(2) for reporting data on

definitization of equitable adjustments.)

(iii) Include a description of military department or defense agency policies or procedures, in

addition to that outlined in FAR 43.204, that apply to definitization of equitable adjustments for

change orders under construction contracts. This description may be provided in a notice by

including an address of an agency-specific, publicly available website containing this information.

(iv) If the military department or defense agency does not have agency-specific procedures, include

the following statement: “There are no agency-specific policies or procedures that apply to the

definitization of equitable adjustments for change orders under construction contracts.”

PGI 205.207 Preparation and transmittal of synopses.

(a)(i) Notice numbering.

(1) For a particular procurement, when submitting notices at different stages of the acquisition (i.e.,

sources sought notice, pre-solicitation notice, award notice), ensure the solicitation number is

entered exactly the same way in order to allow all to be retrieved when a search is performed.
(2) Use only alpha-numeric characters in the solicitation and award number data elements in the

GPE. Do not include hyphens, slashes, or other special characters.

(d) Special notices for small business events. When advertising an event for small businesses, post a

'special notice' notice type and ensure the "title" data field begins with "Small Business Event". This

will enable the public to easily search the GPE using the small business event calendar on the

website.
#### FORMAN, Appellant, v. MALLOY, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

May 29, 1914.)

Action by Alexander A. Forman, Jr., against Thomas Malloy.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, on account of the failure to prove the judgment roll in the Birdsall v. Baird foreclosure proceedings, as a foundation for the referee's deed. As to plaintiff and third persons, the recitals in a deed by the referee in foreclosure cannot establish the judicial proceedings, so that without the judgment roll the referee's deed was unsupported, and did not pass the Baird title. Townshend v. Wesson, 4 Duer, 342; Platt v. Picton, 3 Robertson, 64; 3 Phillips on Evidence (Ed. 1863) 614.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CALVIN FLUKER, RICARDO )

WRIGHT, BERYL JACKSON, )

TRACEY MARTIN, KIMBERLY )

LOVE, and RESHANDA BROWN, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.:

) 2:06cv785-MHT

U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC. and )

U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC. - )

MONTGOMERY DIVISION, )

)

Defendants. ) UNOPPOSED

MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE RESPONSE TO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH AND/OR MODIFY SUBPOENA

Defendant U.S. Foodservice, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “U.S. Foodservice”

or “Defendant”) hereby movesthis Court to grant Defendant a seven-day extension for

filing Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash and/or Modify Subpoena

(Doc. #58). Defendant states the following in support of its Motion:

1. Defendantserved a non-party subpoena on Glover/Auten Food Service on

December 6, 2007.

2. On January 22, 2008, Plaintiff, Calvin Fluker, filed a Motion to Quash

and/or Modify Subpoena.

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 60 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 1 of 3
2

3. This Court issued an Order on January 22, 2008, requiring Defendant to

file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash and/or Modify Subpoena on or before

February 5, 2008.

4. The parties are currently involved in substantial settlement negotiations

and have a good faith belief that some, if not all, of the plaintiffs’ claims may be

settled. Ifsome or all of the plaintiffs’ claims are settled, the subjectsubpoena may no

longer be required, rendering the Motion to Quash and/or Modify Subpoena moot.

5. Counsel for Plaintiff does not oppose a seven-day extension for

Defendant to file its Response to the Motion to Quash and/or Modify Subpoena.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order

granting Defendant a seven-day extension to submit Defendant’sresponse to Plaintiff’s

Motion to Quash and/or Modify.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Tammy L. Baker

Tammy L. Baker (ASB-9522-B62T)

E-Mail: BakerT@jacksonlewis.com

JACKSON LEWIS LLP

First Commercial Bank Building

800 Shades Creek Parkway, Suite 870

Birmingham, Alabama 35209

Phone: (205) 332-3106

Fax: (205) 332-3131

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 60 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on January 30, 2008, the undersigned electronically filed

the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system that will send

notification of such filing to the following:

Jon C. Goldfarb, Esq.

Ethan R. Dettling, Esq.

Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, LLC

301 19

th

Street North

Birmingham, AL 35203

/s/ Tammy L. Baker

Counsel of Record

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 60 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 3 of 3
839.203-70 Information and communication

technology accessibility standards - contract

clause and provision.

(a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 852.239-75, Information and Communication

Technology Accessibility Notice, in all solicitations.

(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 852.239-76, Information and Communication

Technology Accessibility, in all contracts and orders.

Parent topic: Subpart 839.2 - Information and Communication Technology
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6619

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LEONARD MAURICE BROOKS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District

Judge. (CR-91-159-MU, CA-95-474-3-MU)

Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 21, 1997

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leonard Maurice Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning

of the district court. United States v. Brooks, Nos. CR-91-159-MU;

CA-95-474-3-MU (W.D.N.C. Feb. 26, 1997). We find that Appellant's

claims regarding the constitutionality of the crack versus cocaine

ratio and whether the prosecution met its burden of proving that

the substance actually was crack are procedurally barred because

Appellant failed to raise them before the district court. As to

Appellant's claim that his attorney was ineffective because of a

personal conflict of interest, we find that Petitioner has failed

to establish both that his attorney's performance fell below an

objective standard of reasonableness and that he was prejudiced by

the attorney's conduct. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,

687 (1984). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 470 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 470

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                    September 29, 2005.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3824) to amend and reauthorize the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to 
provide greater results conserving and recovering listed species, and for other 
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
confined to the bill and shall not exceed ninety minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under 
the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on 
Resources now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an 
original bill an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text 
of the Resources Committee Print dated September 26, 2005. That amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
that committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. 
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to that amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of 
the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to 
a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member 
may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute made in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```