alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
December 8, 2016 STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN SUPREME COURT A16-1413
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Dale Allen Hansen, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0217840.
ORDER OmcEOF AJIPB.LA1ECcun

The Director ofthe Office ofLawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging thatrespondent Dale Allen Hansen committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline
. Hansen misappropriated a client's funds; made false statements to the client and opposing counsel to conceal his misappropriation; made
a false statement to a court through an associate and failed to correct that false statement; failed to communicate with a client; and knowingly issued trust account checks unsupported by sufficient funds. 

### See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(4), 1.15(a), 1.5(c)(4), 3.3(a)(l), 4.1, 8.4(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d). Hansen failed to notif y clients of a suspension; failed to file the required affidavitwith the Director indicatinghehadprovided notice of his suspension; and failed to seek timely withdrawal of representation oftwo clients in criminal matters and failed to take reasonably practicable steps to protect the interests ofthese clients upon his suspension. 

### See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(d), 3.4(c), 8.4(d); Rule 26(b), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), Rule 26(e), RLPR. Hansen also failed to account to a client regarding a flat fee; failed to refund the unearned portions of the client's flat fee and another client's advance fee; and failed to

### respond to both clients' communications. See 

### Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(a)(4). 1.5(b)(3), 1.16(d). Moreover, Hansen failed to cooperate with the Director. See 

### Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.l(b); Rule 25, RLPR. Hansen and the Directorhave entered into a stipulation for discipline. In it, Hansen unconditionally admits the allegations in the petition for disciplinary action and waives his procedural rights underRule 14, RLPR. Thepartiesjointlyrecommendthatthe appropriate discipline is disbarment. This court has independently reviewed the file and approves the jointly recommended disposition. Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Respondent Dale Allen Hansen is disbarred, effective as ofthe date ofthis order. 2. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of disbarment to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals). 3. Respondent shall pay $900 in costs pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR. Dated: December 8, 2016

2 

### David R. Stras Associate Justice
# C_2016314EN.01001001.xml

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 25 May 2016 — Colegiul Medicilor Veterinari din România v Autoritatea Națională Sanitară Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor

(Case C-297/16)

(2016/C 314/15)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Colegiul Medicilor Veterinari din România

Appellant:

Respondent: Autoritatea Națională Sanitară Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor

Respondent:

Intervener: Asociaţia Naţională a Distribuitorilor de Produse de Uz Veterinar din România

Intervener:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does EU law preclude national legislation which provides that veterinary surgeons are to have an exclusive right in relation to the retailing and use of organic products, special purpose anti-parasitic products and veterinary medicinal products? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does EU law preclude national legislation which provides that veterinary surgeons are to have an exclusive right in relation to the retailing and use of organic products, special purpose anti-parasitic products and veterinary medicinal products?

| 2. | If such an exclusive right is compatible with EU law, does the latter preclude such a right from additionally concerning the structures through which the sale of such products takes place, in the sense that such structures must be mainly or exclusively owned by one or more veterinary surgeons? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If such an exclusive right is compatible with EU law, does the latter preclude such a right from additionally concerning the structures through which the sale of such products takes place, in the sense that such structures must be mainly or exclusively owned by one or more veterinary surgeons?

---
# C_2016251EN.01004902.xml

| 11.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/49

---

Action brought on 31 March 2016 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-18/16)

(2016/C 251/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Sciaudone and R. Sciaudone, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application seeking (i) annulment of the Commission’s decision not to regard the applicant as exercising special responsibilities resulting in his assignment to the type of post ‘Head of unit or equivalent’ or ‘Adviser or equivalent’ pursuant to Article 30(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and (ii) a finding that Commission Communication SEC (2013) 691 of 18 December 2013, which amends the rules governing the composition of the cabinets of the Members of the Commission and spokespersons, is unlawful.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision rejecting his request to be regarded as exercising special responsibilities resulting in his assignment to the type of post ‘Adviser or equivalent’ pursuant to Article 30(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision rejecting his request to be regarded as exercising special responsibilities resulting in his assignment to the type of post ‘Adviser or equivalent’ pursuant to Article 30(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | incidentally, given the failure to implement Article 30(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations fully and in a non-discriminatory manner, annul the communication of 2013 (and the communication of 2014 in so far as it reproduces the communication of 2013); |
| --- | --- |

—

incidentally, given the failure to implement Article 30(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations fully and in a non-discriminatory manner, annul the communication of 2013 (and the communication of 2014 in so far as it reproduces the communication of 2013);

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LAURIE E. SWEIGARD : CIVIL ACTION

 

 :

 VS : 

 :

CHOICE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, 

INC., ET AL 02-2755

 

 

 

 

 ORDER

 AND NOW, this 14TH day of JANUARY, 2003 it is hereby

ORDERED that the above captioned matter is referred

to U.S. Magistrate Judge THOMAS J. RUETER, in accordance 

with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) (A), for the exploration of 

settlement.

 

 

 

 

 AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

 J. CURTIS JOYNER, J.

 

 

 

SET AFTER 1/22/03

Case 2:02-cv-02755-JCJ Document 19 Filed 01/16/2003 Page 1 of 1
(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 Trust.
 MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST IVBy:
    
    /s/ MARLENE DEBEL

Name: Marlene Debel*Title: Regular Trustee
 Dated: May 13, 2010
 *
    
    Marlene Debel functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Trust for purposes of Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
No. 51625.

#### Protests 841341-G, etc., of Quong Yee Wo (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of kumquats similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Fung Chong Co.*(34 C. C. P. A. 40, C. A. D. 342). In accordance therewith the claim at 1 cent per pound under paragraph 743 was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

LEONARD : CIVIL ACTION

:

 :

 v. :

:

 : 

MONTGOMERY INSURANCE : NO. 02-4156

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 4th day of April, 2003, in accordance with the court's

procedure for random reassignment of cases, it is hereby

ORDERED that the above-captioned case is reassigned from the calendar of

the Honorable Jay C. Waldman to the calendar of the Honorable Michael M. Baylson, subject to

further order of this court.

 FOR THE COURT:

 JAMES T. GILES 

 Chief Judge

 ATTEST:

 ___________________

 MICHAEL E. KUNZ

 Clerk of Court

Case 2:02-cv-04156-MMB Document 6 Filed 04/04/2003 Page 1 of 1
|EXHIBIT 32
|----------

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 Amendment #1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A1 of Westsphere Asset Corporation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas MacDonald, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: May 4, 2007 |  | By:  /s/ Douglas Mac Donald   
|----------------- |  | ------------------------------
|                  |  |                               
|                  |  | Name: Douglas MacDonald       
|                  |  | Title: Chief Executive Officer

---
Before the Second Division,

November 25, 1958

No. 62469.

#### Heinrich Herrmann & Weiss *v.*United States,

protest 304958-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of traveling irons similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Greatrex, Limited,*and *J. J. Gavin & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 79, C. D. 1639), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs September 22, 2009

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIAM J. WILSON

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Bledsoe County

No. 71-2006 J. Curtis Smith, Judge

 

No. E2009-00772-CCA-R3-CD - Filed December 29, 2009

 

D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., J., concurring.

I join in the results reached by the majority insofar as we do not have an adequate record in

which to review the particulars of the Defendant’s case. I write separately to express my concern

that the probation rule in question, if applied to all probationers, offends due process. The rule

prohibits contact or association with any adults who have minor children. The breadth of such a

prohibition is problematic and the relationship of the prohibition to the goals of probation is

questionable. 

Probationary terms are guided by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-303, which states

in pertinent part that “the court shall specify the terms of supervision and may require the offender

to comply with certain conditions.” § 40-35-303(d). The statute then states several conditions that

the trial court may impose on the Defendant in addition to “any other conditions reasonably related

to the purpose of the offender’s sentence.” § 40-35-303(d)(9). These unspecified conditions must

not be “unduly restrictive of the offender’s liberty, or incompatible with the offender’s freedom of
2

conscience.” Id.; see also State v. Mathes, 114 S.W.3d 915 (Tenn. 2003) (holding that requiring a

defendant to legitimate her daughter as a condition of probation was not reasonably related to her

sentence for her aggravated assault conviction); State v. Joshua William Algood, No. M2004-00535-

CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 839298, *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 18, 2005) (holding that requiring a

defendant to establish paternity of his children was not reasonably related to his sentence for his

aggravated burglary and theft convictions).

Given the state of the record, the validity of the probation rule in this case cannot be

determined. This conclusion must not be taken as approval, tacit or otherwise, of the probation rule.

 

D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., JUDGE
# C_2017437EN.01003101.xml

| 18.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2017 — Isocell v EUIPO — iCell (iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden)

(Case T-777/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden - Earlier EU word mark Isocell, earlier international word mark Isocell and earlier international and national word marks ISOCELL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2017/C 437/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Isocell GmbH (Neumarkt am Wallersee, Austria) (represented by: C. Thiele, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: iCell AB (Älvdalen, Sweden) (represented by: J. Kroher, lawyer)

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016 (Case R 181/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Isocell and iCell.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Isocell GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Isocell GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

1

---
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1492 

To establish a Regional Corporation for Natives who are non-residents of 

Alaska, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 29, 2017 

Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. SULLIVAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To establish a Regional Corporation for Natives who are 

non-residents of Alaska, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘ANCSA Thirteenth 

5 Regional Corporation Reincorporation Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. 13TH REGIONAL CORPORATION. 

7 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

8 (1) NATIVE.—The term ‘‘Native’’ has the 

9 meaning given the term in section 3 of the Alaska 

10 Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602). 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1492 IS

1 (2) REGIONAL CORPORATION.—The term ‘‘Re2 gional Corporation’’ has the meaning given the term 

3 in section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

4 Act (43 U.S.C. 1602). 

5 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

6 the Secretary of the Interior. 

7 (b) AUTHORIZATION.—A Regional Corporation for 

8 Natives who are non-residents of Alaska may be estab9 lished for the thirteenth region in accordance with section 

10 7(c) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 

11 U.S.C. 1606(c)). 

12 (c) MEETING.— 

13 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), as 

14 soon as practicable after the date of enactment of 

15 this Act, the Secretary shall convene a meeting of 

16 the shareholders of the Regional Corporation estab17 lished pursuant to section 7(c) of the Alaska Native 

18 Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1606(c)) for the 

19 purpose of the election of a board of directors. 

20 (2) NOTICE REQUIREMENT.—In advance of the 

21 meeting under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 

22 notify the roll of current shareholders of the Re23 gional Corporation (as determined under section 

24 5(b) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1492 IS

1 U.S.C. 1604(b)) of the time and place of the meet2 ing. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with BILLS
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
   In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Concept Digital, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph
Douek, Principal Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:
   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
      Company.
   
  /s/ Joseph
      DouekJoseph
      DouekPrincipal
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer
  Date:
December 9, 2008
   A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<Page>

                                                                  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

   The undersigned, Ronald J. Ivans, Chief Financial Officer of the managing
owner, Prudential Securities Futures Management Inc. (the 'Managing Owner'), of
World Monitor Trust--Series B ('Series B'), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

   (1) Series B's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 27,
       2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
       hereof (the 'Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
       material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
       Series B.

/s/ Ronald J. Ivans
------------------------------------------------------
Ronald J. Ivans
Chief Financial Officer of the Managing Owner
August 11, 2003
Robison Engineering Company, Inc 

846 Victorian Avenue, Suite 20, Sparks, NV 89431 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations 

775-852-2251 - www.robisoneng.com 

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Date: October 27, 2015 

Washington, DC 20590 

SUBJECT: Application to Ammend Section 333 Exemption No. 11585 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-0442 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

As petitioner of the previously granted Exemption No. 11 585 for a sense Fly eBee RTK unmanned 

aircraft (UA), Robison Engineering Company requests an amendment to add the DJI Phantom 2 

and DJI Phantom 3 multi-rotor UA to the exemption. The purpose is to add an additional aircraft 

to our fleet to help our flight operations adhere to the limitations and rules laid out in the exemption. 

The vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft will allow us to adhere to the 500ft buffer from 

people and property without risk of overflying. The hovering and turn-on-location capability of this 

VTOL will also allow us to avoid property over which we do not have permission to fly, while 

gathering data closely adjacent to such property. We request no change to the limitations and 

guidelines previously set and affirm that all these same rules will be adhered to as originally stated 

in the exemption. With the DJI Phantom series being the most widely approved UA in the docket 

system, we believe the technical specifications and flight parameters are familiar to the FAA, with 

an acceptable safety record when responsibly operated. 

Attached hereto is the DJI Phantom user's manual for reference. 

Please let me know if you need anything else, and contact me any time. 

NGINEERING COMPANY 

Nat an ar Robison, PE, WRS 

President, Principal Engineer 

775-852-2251 X 700 

nathan@ robisonenq.com 

Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      5,714,000
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 854,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (65,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 1,043,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            8,254,000
<PP&E>                                      2,842,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              (897,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             24,142,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       5,309,000
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        9,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 18,727,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               24,142,000
<SALES>                                     5,890,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            5,930,000
<CGS>                                       4,205,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               4,205,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            8,081,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (5,873,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (5,873,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                              (5,873,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.73)



</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARA FLAMM : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

SARNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.; JOSHUA SARNER; : NO. 02-4302

LEONARD SARNER, ESQUIRE; :

JODI H. BROWN, M.D.; JOHN MATUSAVAGE; :

JOHN DOE PROCESS SERVER, INDIVIDUALLY AND :

AS AGENT FOR SARNER 7 ASSOCIATES, P.C.; :

JOSHUA SARNER, ESQUIRE; LEONARD SARNER, :

ESQUIRE; AND JODI H. BROWN, M.D. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 28th day of May, 2003, upon consideration of the fact that the abovecaptioned matter has been STAYED and placed CIVIL SUSPENSE, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Telephone Status Conference which was scheduled for June 5, 2003, is

CONTINUED.

2. Counsel are reminded of their responsibility to inform the Court upon the resolution of

Plaintiff’s bankruptcy petition.

BY THE COURT:

 

M. FAITH ANGELL

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 48 Filed 05/29/2003 Page 1 of 1