alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IN THE MATTER OF MARIETT D. BUCK LONG.

(Supreme Court Disciplinary No. 694)

(384 SE2d 635)

Per curiam.

The State Bar of Georgia brought disciplinary proceedings against attorney Mariett D. Buck Long charging her with violations of Standard 44 (wilful abandonment or disregard of a legal matter) and Standard 68 (failure to respond to the investigation of a complaint). The respondent was personally served, but failed to file any answer, obtain an extension of time, or respond in any manner to the complaint or to the State Bar’s investigation thereof. Therefore, under Georgia Bar Rule 4-212 (a), the charge for violating Standard 44 was deemed admitted, and the special master entered findings of fact and conclusions of law to that effect.

According to the facts thus admitted, the respondent was retained by a client for the purpose of clearing her record of any reference to her mistaken arrest by the Cobb County Police Department on September 26, 1985. On September 25, 1987, the respondent filed suit in federal court against the Cobb County Board of Commissioners and the two detectives from the Cobb County Police Department who had arrested the client. On November 23, 1987, the respondent mailed the client papers in response to the defendants’ interrogatories, which were to be signed and returned to the respondent. The client was unsuccessful in contacting the respondent to explain the papers, but she answered the interrogatories and returned them to the respondent. Thereafter, the client was unable to get in touch with the respondent at all. The respondent failed to file responses to the defendants’ discovery requests or to defendants’ counsel’s letter reminding her that the responses were past due. The respondent’s total failure to prosecute the case resulted in the dismissal of the case without prejudice.

The Review Panel of the State Disciplinary Board adopted the special master’s findings that the respondent had admitted the charges by having failed to file an answer, and that she had not presented any mitigating evidence. The Review Panel recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.

The recommendation of the Review Panel is approved and adopted. It is ordered that the suspension of Mariett D. Buck Long from membership in the State Bar of Georgia and the suspension of her license to practice law in the State of Georgia for one year commencing November 1, 1989, be approved for violations of Standards 44 and 68 of the Rules of the State Bar of Georgia.

*Suspended for one year.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*495Decided October 19, 1989.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Bridget B. Bagley, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

                                                                 Exhibit 27

                     TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, L.P.
                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE


        This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the
financial  statements of Time Warner  Entertainment  Company,  L.P. for the nine
months ended September 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
<CIK>                                              0000893657
<NAME>                                             TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT

<S>                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                             1
<CASH>                                                    235
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           3,355
<ALLOWANCES>                                              470
<INVENTORY>                                             3,259
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        4,581
<PP&E>                                                 10,340
<DEPRECIATION>                                          3,955
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         23,228
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   5,194
<BONDS>                                                 6,725
<COMMON>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                              6,342
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           23,228
<SALES>                                                 9,468
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        9,468
<CGS>                                                   4,933
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           4,933
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        411
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         1,734
<INCOME-TAX>                                               94
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     1,640
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                            1,640
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               0




</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 127 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 40692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16585]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

    Notice is hereby given that on June 20, 2000, a proposed Consent 
Decree in United States v. Fleetwood Industries, Inc., et al., Civil 
Action No. 00-CV-1818, was lodged with the United States District Court 
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
    In this action the United States sought the reimbursement of 
response costs in connection with the Berks Landfill Superfund Site in 
Spring Township, Pennsylvania (``the Site'') pursuant to the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 
(``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. The Consent Decree resolves the 
United States' claims against Hub Fabricating Company and Kachel 
Motors, Inc. for response costs incurred as a result of the release or 
threatened release of hazardous substances at the Site. These parties 
will pay the Untied States $7,760.67.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (d) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent 
Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General 
of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of 
Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044, and should refer to 
United States v. Fleetwood Industries, Inc., et al., D.J. Ref. 90-11-2-
1347.
    The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United 
States Attorney, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 615 Chestnut Street, 
Suite 1250, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106, or at the Region 3 Office 
of the Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania 19103. A copy of the Consent Decree may also be obtained 
by mail by requesting a copy from the Department of Justice Consent 
Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. In requesting 
a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $7.25 (29 pages at 25 
cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the Consent Decree 
Library.

Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 00-16585 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
#### *Commonwealth v. Cregor.

J une Term. 1850.

1. Adultery and Fornication—Number of Witnesses Necessary to Convict—Repeal of Statute,—The act 1 Rev. Code, ch. 141, § 6, p. 555, which makes the oath of two credible witnesses necessary to a conviction in a case of adultery and fornication, is repealed by ch. 27, § 2, p. 164, of the Criminal Code, Sess. Acts of 1847-48.

2, Same—Same.—One credible witness is now sufficient to authorize a conviction for adultery or fornication.

Elizabeth Cregor was indicted for adultery with James Cole, in the Circuit court of Wythe county, at the April term of the Court for 1849. On the trial, the jury rendered the following verdict: “We find upon the evidence of one credible witness that the defendant is a married woman; That within twelve months previous to the finding this indictment, she habitually bedded with James Cole in the indictment mentioned, as man and wife, the said Cole not being her husband. If upon the foregoing facts so found upon the evidence of but one witness, the law be for the Commonwealth, we find the defendant guilty, and assess her fine to twenty dollars; but if the law be for the defendant, we find her not guilty. ’ ’

Upon the finding of this verdict, the Circuit court, with the consent of the defendant, adjourned to this Court the following questions:

1st. Is so much of the sixth section of the act, entitled “An act for the effectual suppression of vice, and punishing the disturbers of religious worship and Sabbath breaking,” 1 Rev. Code, page 555, as makes the oaths of two credible witnesses -necessary to a conviction, in cases of adultery and fornication, repealed by the 2d section of the 27th chapter of the Criminal Code, Sess. Acts 1847-48, page 164?

2d. What judgment ought to be entered on the special verdict?

*310*EEIGH, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Court is of opinion and doth decide, first, that so much of the 6th section of the' act for the effectual suppression of vice and punishing the disturbers of religious worship and Sabbath breakers, 1 Rev. Code, p. 555, as makes the oath of two credible witnesses necessary to a conviction in cases of adultery and fornication, is repealed by the 2d section of the 27th chapter of the Criminal Code, Sess. Acts 1847-48, page 164. And secondly, that judgment ought to be rendered on the special verdict in favour of the Commonwealth for the fine assessed by the jury. Which is ordered to be certified, &c. _
S8900278.

#### SUN v. COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA.

(385 SE2d 292)

Decided September 8, 1989.

Joseph C. Sun, *pro se.*

Per curiam.

This is a case in which mandamus does not lie, therefore, it is dismissed.

*Petition for writ dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*403
      *Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General,*for appellee.
EXHIBIT 31.2

I, Stephen C.Donnelly, certify that:

1.          Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Emtec, Inc.;

2.          Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport; 

3.          Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.          Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

          a)          designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

          b)          evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

          c)          disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.          Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

          a)          allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

          b)          anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date: July 17,2006
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O . A P - 7 6 , 6 3 5

E X P A R T E E R I C L A M O N D D A V I S , A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N F O R A W R I T O F H A B E A S C O R P U S C A U S E N O . 0 8 C R - 1 2 3 I N T H E 3 4 9 D I S T R I C T C O U R T T H F R O M H O U S T O N C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of murder and
sentenc ed to life imprisonment. The Six th Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Davis v. State , No. 06-09-00033- CR (Tex. App.–Tex arka na Sep. 18, 2009). Applicant contends, i nter alia , that his appellate counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance b ec au s e co u n s el failed to timely notify Applicant of his rig ht to file a petition for discretionar y revie w . We rema

nded this a

pplication to the trial court for finding s of fac t and conclusions of law.2

Appellate counsel filed an aff idavit with the trial court. Ba sed on that aff idavit, the trial court has enter ed finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed to notify Applicant that he had a rig ht to file a pro-se petition for discretionar y revie w. Ex parte W

ilson , 956 S.W .2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Ex parte Florentino , 206 S.W .3d 124 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); T E X . R. A P P . P. 48.4. We find, there fore , that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for discretionar

y revie w of the judgme nt of the Six th Court of Appea ls in Cause No. 06-09-00033- C R t h at af

firmed his conviction in Case No. 08CR-123 from the 349 J udicial District Court of t h Houston County

. Applicant shall file petition for discretionar y revie w with this Court within 30 day s of the da te on which this Court’s mandate issues. Applicant’s rema ining claims are dismiss ed. Ex Parte Torres , 943 S.W .2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

Deliver ed: September

14, 2011 Do not publish
Order filed, November 12, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00572-CV

____________

RICHARD ALAN HAASE, Appellant

V.

ABRAHAM, WATKINS, NICHOLS, SORRELS AND FRIEND, LLP AND 

RANDY SORRELLS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-17970

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due October 20, 2014. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Michelle Tucker, the official court reporter, to file the record in 

this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 REGION 4

 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER

 61 FORSYTH STREET

 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960

 

March 9, 2015 

Mr. Ronald W. Gore 

Chief 

Air Division, Alabama Department of 

 Environmental Management 

P.O. box 301463 

Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1463 

Dear Mr. Gore:

Enclosed is the final end-of-year report for your agency’s FY 2014 Air Pollution Control grant 

authorized by §105 of the Clean Air Act. This report outlines your agency’s various grant commitments 

and their status. Since there were no issues and no adjustments necessary your report is now finalized. 

This letter documents the conclusion of the joint evaluation process required by 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations 35.115 and identified as a commitment in your FY 2014 Air Planning Agreement under 

Cross Cutting Issues. 

We appreciate the progress you made in FY 2014 and look forward to continuing our joint efforts to 

protect and improve air quality. If you have any questions regarding your grant, please contact Stuart 

Perry at (404) 562-8980 or Gwendolyn Graf at (404) 562-9289. 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Beverly H. Banister 

Director, 

Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division

 

Enclosure
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-05-319-CV

ROBERT SOLIS	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	------------

	FROM THE 89TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

I. Introduction

	In two issues, Robert Solis complains of the trial court’s dismissal of his Rule 202 petition and resulting denial of “meaningful access to the courts.”  We reverse and remand.

II. Background

	Solis claims that he received a foot injury in September 2004, while in the recreation yard in the James Allred Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division (“TDCJ-ID”) and was thereafter denied appropriate medical attention.  Wishing to petition for a redress of his alleged grievances resulting therefrom, he sought the identity of certain employees of the TDCJ-ID and the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center but was unable to obtain these names.  He then filed a pleading in the trial court which, while not denominated as such, appears to be a Rule 202 petition, enumerating numerous people “entitled to notice” for “investigation of potential claim” and seeking to depose them.  Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.  The petition was later denied along with two motions for bench warrants and a motion to set the case for a hearing on the merits of Solis’s petition, and the cause was dismissed.  This appeal resulted.

III. Lack of Service

	In his first issue, Solis complains that the trial court dismissed his petition, and did so without a hearing that had been requested.  The State responds that Solis never served the people he wanted to depose pursuant to the petition, so the dismissal was proper.  Rule 202.3(a) reads,

	(a) Personal Service on Witnesses and Persons Named.  At least 15 days before the date of the hearing on the petition, the petitioner must serve the petition and a notice of the hearing—in accordance with Rule 21a—on all persons petitioner seeks to depose and, if suit is anticipated, on all persons petitioner expects to have interests adverse to petitioner’s in the anticipated suit.

Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.3(a).

	The problem with the State’s argument is that the hearing was never set by the court, even after being requested to do so by Solis, and hence the fifteen-days-before-hearing deadline for service never came into play, particularly since the rule seems to imply that the proposed deponents will be notified simultaneously of the petition and its hearing date.  Hence, we hold that dismissing the petition for want of service was improper.2 

IV. Conclusion

	Having sustained Solis’s first issue, it being thereby unnecessary to reach his second issue, we reverse and remand the trial court’s judgment for further proceedings.

							BOB MCCOY

							JUSTICE

PANEL B:	CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and MCCOY, JJ.

CAYCE, C.J. concurs without opinion.

DELIVERED: June 29, 2006
Purchase and Option Agreement between Astrex, Inc. and Enigma Energy Company

ANNEX A

                         PERCENTAGE INTEREST OF MEMBERS

Member                              Shares                        Percentage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.  Charles B. Crowell              875                           17.5%
2.  Kenneth E. Etheredge            450                            9%
3.  N. Forrest Germany               50                            1%
4.  James W. Harpel                 700                           14%
5.  Pirvest, Inc.                   450                            9%
6.  Bruce E. Lazier                 450                            9%
7.  J. Patrick McLochlin            250                            5%
8.  Ted C. Newell                   250                            5%
9.  E. Wayne Nordberg               500                           10%
10. Martin B. Oring                 150                            3%
11. John P. Tatum                   875                           17.5 %
                                    ---                           ------

Total                             5,000                          100%
| 1.  | I      have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Andrea Electronics      Corporation; and                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
| 2.  | Based      on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue      statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to      make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such      statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by      thisreport. |

|   | Date:  March      28, 2009 | /s/      CORISA L. GUIFFRE                                                                               |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                 | Corisa      L. GuiffreVice      President, Chief Financial Officer andAssistant      Corporate Secretary |   |