alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic 

and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of 

any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go 

to press. 

District of Columbia

Court of Appeals

No. 19-BG-368

IN RE CAROLYN M. CROWLEY

A Member of the Bar of the 2019 DDN 40

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 444797

BEFORE: McLeese, Associate Judge, and Washington and Nebeker, Senior 

Judges. 

O R D E R

(FILED- July 25, 2019)

On consideration of the certified order of the Supreme Court of Florida 

suspending respondent from the practice of law in the state of Florida for 91 days;

this court’s May 3, 2019, order suspending respondent pending further action of the 

court and directing her to show cause why the functional-equivalent reciprocal 

discipline of a 91-day suspension with a fitness requirement should not be imposed;

the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline; and it 

appearing that respondent failed to file a response to the court’s show cause order 

but did file her D.C. Bar R. XI § 14(g) affidavit on May 29, 2019; it is

ORDERED that Carolyn M. Crowley, also known as Carolyn M. Holt, is 

hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period 

of 91 days nunc pro tunc to May 29, 2019, with reinstatement contingent on a 

showing of fitness. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010), and In re Fuller, 

930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal 

discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate). 

PER CURIAM
# L_2022030EN.01000101.xml

| 11.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 30/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 30/1

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2022/183

of 10 February 2022

implementing Article 21(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 (1), and in particular Article 21(5) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 18 January 2016, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) 2016/44. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 18 January 2016, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) 2016/44.

| (2) | On 28 January 2022, the United Nations Security Council (‘UNSC’) Committee established pursuant to UNSC Resolution 1970 (2011) amended the listing for one person subject to restrictive measures. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 28 January 2022, the United Nations Security Council (‘UNSC’) Committee established pursuant to UNSC Resolution 1970 (2011) amended the listing for one person subject to restrictive measures.

| (3) | Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2016/44 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2016/44 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2016/44 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 February 2022.

For the Council

The President

J.-Y. LE DRIAN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 12, 19.1.2016, p. 1.

1

---

ANNEX

In Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2016/44, entry 15 is replaced by the following:

‘15.   Name: 1: SAADI 2: QADHAFI 3: na 4: na

Title: na Designation: Commander Special Forces DOB: a)
  27 May 1973
  b)
  1 Jan. 1975
  POB: Tripoli, Libya Good quality a.k.a.: na Low quality a.k.a.: na Nationality: na Passport no: a) 014797 b) 524521 c) Libya number AA862825, issued on 19 May 2021, issued in Tripoli (expires 18 May 2029) National identification no: na Address: Libya (in custody) Listed on:
  26 Feb. 2011 (amended on 28 Jan. 2022, 26 Mar. 2015, 2 Apr. 2012, 14 Mar. 2012) Other information: Listed pursuant to paragraph 15 of resolution 1970 (Travel Ban). Listed on 17 March 2011 pursuant to paragraph 17 of resolution 1970 (Asset Freeze).’

---
September 9, 1954

No. 58385.

Suit 4821.

#### United States *v.*Nicholas Gal (Globe Shipping Co., Inc.).

A. R. D. 39 and A. R. D. 15. (Appeal dismissed June 18, 1954.)
EXHIBIT 32.1


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

I, Donna M. Coughey, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Chester Valley
Bancorp Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the Company's Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that as of the date of this statement, the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all in material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company The purpose of this
statement is to solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the
United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.


Date:  November 13, 2003                  /s/ Donna M. Coughey
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Donna M. Coughey
                                          President & Chief Executive Officer
No. 58791.

protests 238132-K, etc. (New York).

#### Kaufman & Vinson Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protests were dismissed, and the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 127 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
H. J. RES. 127

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            December 7 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 106-275, is 
further amended by striking

the date specified in section 106(c) and inserting ``December 8, 
2000''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 7, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER 

PAGE – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

TANA IHRIG and MARK IHRIG,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C06-0512RSM

ORDER DISMISSING

 DEFENDANT BOUDREAU

 AND STRIKING PENDING

 MOTIONS

This matter comes before the Court on defendant Richard J. Boudreau & Associates,

Inc.’s (“Boudreau”) motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. (Dkt. #19). On April 12, 2006, plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit, alleging claims for

unlawful and tortious debt collection practices, unauthorized practice of law, and unfair credit

reporting against Boudreau and seven other defendants. (Dkt. #1). Defendant Boudreau

followed with a motion to dismiss, arguing that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted because plaintiffs have failed to allege that they ever disputed any

information reported to the credit agency by Boudreau. (Dkt. #19). The instant motion was

noted for consideration on August 25, 2006. Plaintiffs have failed to respond.

Accordingly, having reviewed defendant Boudreau’s Motion to Dismiss, and the

remainder of the record, the Court does hereby find and ORDER:

Case 2:06-cv-00512-RSM Document 50 Filed 09/11/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER 

PAGE – 2

(1) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #19) is GRANTED, and plaintiffs’ claims

against that defendant are DISMISSED with prejudice. This Court’s Local Rules state that “[i]f

a party fails to file papers in opposition to a motion, such failure may be considered by the court

as an admission that the motion has merit.” Local Rule CR 7(b)(2). Having reviewed the

record in this case, the Court finds no reason not to apply this rule. Defendant Boudreau, in a

separate motion for extension of time, asserts that the parties have settled in principle; however,

none of the parties have formally notified this Court of any such settlement, nor has defendant

Boudreau withdrawn this motion. (See Dkt. #46). Moreover, plaintiffs have failed to request,

or receive, any relief from responding to Boudreau’s Motion to Dismiss. Therefore, the Court

finds dismissal appropriate.

(2) Defendant Boudreau’s pending Motion to Withdraw (Dkt. #40) and Second Motion

for Extension of Time (Dkt. #46) are STRICKEN AS MOOT.

(3) Defendant Washington Mutual’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #22) REMAINS pending

for consideration on September 22, 2006.

(4) The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.

DATED this 11 day of September 8, 2006.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00512-RSM Document 50 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 2
Before Judge Donlon,

August 8, 1967

No. R67/94.

#### International Packers, Limited *v.*United States, reappraisement R61/11371 (New Orleans).

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved respectively in *International*Packers, *Limited*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 636, Reap. Dec. 11147), as to merchandise appraised on the basis of export value, and *International Packers, Limited*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 472, Reap. Dec. 10696), as to merchandise appraised on the basis of United States value, the court found and held those respective values, as defined in section 402, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper bases for determining value of the entered canned meat products listed on schedule “B,” under the headings “Export Value” and “United States Value,” packed in container sizes identified on such schedule, and exported from Argentina during the period January 1, 1959, through December 31, 1959, described on the invoices of the entry in this appeal for reappraisement, and that such values per dozen tins, net packed, are the respective values shown as plaintiff’s claimed values on schedule “B,” for the respective products and sizes of container described on the invoices and stated in the entry and recited in schedule “B,” under the headings “Export Value” and “United States Value” during those periods which correspond to the time of exportation of the schedule “B” canned meats described under the headings “Export Value” and “United States Value” and covered by this appeal for reappraisement, schedule “B” being attached to and made a part of the decision.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

KIRK L. WILLIAMS

, Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 2

- 2091

[ December 8, 2022 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 from the Circuit Court for the

Fif teenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Jeffrey Dana Gillen

, Judge;

L.T. Case No. 502013 C F 011875 A

.

Kirk L. Williams

, Zephyrhills, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY

, K UNTZ and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Angela Denise Nails, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Civil Action No. 

United States Department of Labor, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

AUG - 9 2010 

Clerk. U.S. District & Bankruptcy 

CourtB for the District of Columbia 

10 1331 

This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and application 

to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint dismissed for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff is a resident of Napier Field, Alabama, suing the Department of Labor ("DOL") 

for what appears to be a workers' compensation claim stemming from an alleged bum to her leg 

suffered on the job. She appears to fault her unidentified employer for failing "to file the proper 

documents" with DOL's Office of Workers' Compensation Program. See CompI. ~~ 17-19. The 

cryptic complaint allegations fail to provide a basis for this court to exercise jurisdiction. I To the 

extent that plaintiff is challenging a decision about workers' compensation benefits, the" [F ederal 

Employees Compensation Act] contains an 'unambiguous and comprehensive' provision barring 

any judicial review of the Secretary of Labor's determination ofFECA coverage." Southwest 

Marine, Inc. v. Gizoni, 502 U.S. 81,90 (1991) (citing Lindahl v. Office of Personnel 

Management, 470 U.S. 768, 780, and n. 13 (1985); 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b)); see Heilman v. Us., 731 

I Plaintiff invokes the Constitution, but she has stated no facts to support a constitutional 

violation. 
F.2d 1104, 1109 (3rd Cir. 1984) (the Secretary of Labor administers the FECA and "is the 

ultimate arbiter of the amount, if any, of compensation" awarded thereunder). The Court 

therefore concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. A separate Order 

of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1


                            SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY


      KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned constitutes and
appoints Scott A. Schuff and Kenneth F. Zylstra, and each of them, his true and
lawful attorney-in-fact and agent with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, for him and in his name, place, and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1997, for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission by
Schuff Steel Company, a Delaware corporation, together with any and all
amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same with all exhibits thereto,
and all documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, granting to such attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them,
full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully and to
all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that such attorneys-in-fact and agents, or each of them, may
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

      DATED: January 31, 1998


                                    /s/ David A. Schuff
                                    David A. Schuff
<PAGE>   2
STATE OF Arizona        )
                        )
County of Maricopa      )



      On this 31st day of January, 1998, before me, the undersigned Notary
Public, personally appeared David A. Schuff, known to me to be the person whose
name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that he executed
the same for the purposes therein contained.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.


                                    /s/ Evelin R. Lackey
                                    Notary Public

My commission expires:

   July 14, 2000
III

Calendar No. 931

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 89

[Report No. 106–482]

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 9, 2000

Received and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

OCTOBER 3 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Reported by Mr. MURKOWSKI, without amendment

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Recognizing the Hermann Monument and Hermann Heights

Park in New Ulm, Minnesota, as a national symbol of

the contributions of Americans of German heritage.

Whereas there are currently more than 57,900,000 individuals of German heritage residing in the United States,

who comprise nearly 25 percent of the population of the

United States and are therefore the largest ethnic group

in the United States;
2

HCON 89 RS

Whereas those of German heritage are not merely descendants of one political entity, but of all German speaking

areas;

Whereas numerous Americans of German heritage have made

countless contributions to American culture, arts, and industry, the American military, and American government;

Whereas there is no recognized tangible, national symbol

dedicated to German Americans and their positive contributions to the United States;

Whereas the story of Hermann the Cheruscan parallels that

of the American Founding Fathers, because he was a

freedom fighter who united ancient German tribes in

order to shed the yoke of Roman tyranny and preserve

freedom for the territory of present-day Germany;

Whereas the Hermann Monument located in Hermann

Heights Park in New Ulm, Minnesota, was dedicated in

1897 in honor of the spirit of freedom and later dedicated to all German immigrants who settled in New Ulm

and elsewhere in the United States; and

Whereas the Hermann Monument has been recognized as a

site of special historical significance by the United States

Government, by placement on the National Register of

Historic Places: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Hermann Monument and Hermann

3 Heights Park in New Ulm, Minnesota, are recognized by

4 the Congress to be a national symbol for the contributions

5 of Americans of German heritage.

Calendar No. 931

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 89

[Report No. 106–482]

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Recognizing the Hermann Monument and Hermann

Heights Park in New Ulm, Minnesota, as a national symbol of the contributions of Americansof German heritage.

OCTOBER 3 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Reported without amendment
No. P68/117.

protests 65/24843, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Sinclair Paint Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of hanging paper *1012similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Victor England*Agencies, *Inc.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 83, C.D. 2394), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

January 5, 1950

No. 53870.

#### Alfred W. Hopson *v.*United States,

petition 6702-R (Tampa).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial the petitioner testified that large quantities of these gloves were purchased and entered at the same price and that the six entries in question were the only importations advanced in, value; that he had discussed the value of gloves on several occasions with customs officials; and that upon his investigation in the Cuban markets he found he was paying 50 cents a dozen more than the home value. Later, petitioner was given an opportunity to amend the entries, but he did not receive notice from the broker until about 3 days before the limit of time set for amendment. Before he could ascertain from the broker what the trouble was, the time to amend had passed. In view of the evidence presented, it was held that the petitioner showed good faith in entering the goods as he did and was entirely without intent to defraud the revenue or deceive the appraiser. The petition was therefore granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 335 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 335

Expressing the sense of Congress that if the People's Republic of China 
 attacks, invades, or imposes a blockade on Taiwan, the United States 
 will respond vigorously, including but not limited to revoking normal 
                            trade relations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 2000

   Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. Berman, and Mr. Cox) 
 submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
 the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on 
International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by 
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of Congress that if the People's Republic of China 
 attacks, invades, or imposes a blockade on Taiwan, the United States 
 will respond vigorously, including but not limited to revoking normal 
                            trade relations.

Whereas article XXI of the GATT 1994 (as defined in section 2(1)(B) of the 
        Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501(1)(B)) allows a member of 
        the World Trade Organization to take ``any action which it considers 
        necessary for the protection of its essential security interests,'' 
        particularly ``in time of war or other emergency in international 
        relations''; and
Whereas an attack on, invasion of, or blockade of Taiwan by the People's 
        Republic of China would constitute a threat to the essential security 
        interests of the United States and an emergency in international 
        relations: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that if the People's Republic of 
China attacks, invades, or imposes a blockade on Taiwan, then pursuant 
to article XXI of the GATT 1994 and existing statutory authority 
including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 
1701 et seq.), the United States should and would immediately revoke 
nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) for the 
products of the People's Republic of China, and should and would 
immediately respond with all economic and military measures necessary 
in such circumstances.
                                 <all>
```