alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

86–204 2003

108th Congress, 1st Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 108–58

AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF 

BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE

COMMUNICATION

FROM

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, THE SUPREME 

COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

TRANSMITTING

AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE COURT, PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. 2075

MARCH 27, 2003.—Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and 

ordered to be printed 


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
(1)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 

Washington, DC, March 27, 2003. 

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I have the honor to submit to the Congress 

the amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 

that have been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States 

pursuant to Section 2075 of Title 28, United States Code. 

Accompanying these rules are excerpts from the report of the Judicial Conference of the United States containing the Committee 

Notes submitted to the Court for its consideration pursuant to Section 331 of Title 28, United States Code. 

Sincerely, 

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, 

Chief Justice. 

(3)


Insert offset folio 3 here HD58.001
4


Insert offset folio 4 here HD58.002
5


Insert offset folio 5 here HD58.003
6


Insert offset folio 6 here HD58.004
7


Insert offset folio 7 here HD58.005
8


Insert offset folio 8 here HD58.006
9


Insert offset folio 9 here HD58.007
10


Insert offset folio 10 here HD58.008
11


Insert offset folio 11 here HD58.009
12


Insert offset folio 12 here HD58.010
13


Insert offset folio 13 here HD58.011
14


Insert offset folio 14 here HD58.012
15


Insert offset folio 15 here HD58.013
16


Insert offset folio 16 here HD58.014
17


Insert offset folio 17 here HD58.015
18


Insert offset folio 18 here HD58.016
19


Insert offset folio 19 here HD58.017
20


Insert offset folio 20 here HD58.018
21


Insert offset folio 21 here HD58.019
22


Insert offset folio 22 here HD58.020
23


Insert offset folio 23 here HD58.021
24


Insert offset folio 24 here HD58.022
25


Insert offset folio 25 here HD58.023
26


Insert offset folio 26 here HD58.024
27


Insert offset folio 27 here HD58.025
28


Insert offset folio 28 here HD58.026
29


Insert offset folio 29 here HD58.027
30


Insert offset folio 30 here HD58.028
31


Insert offset folio 31 here HD58.029
32


Insert offset folio 32 here HD58.030
33


Insert offset folio 33 here HD58.031
34


Insert offset folio 34 here HD58.032
35


Insert offset folio 35 here HD58.033
36


Insert offset folio 36 here HD58.034
37


Insert offset folio 37 here HD58.035
38


Insert offset folio 38 here HD58.036
39


Insert offset folio 39 here HD58.037
40


Insert offset folio 40 here HD58.038
41


Insert offset folio 41 here HD58.039
42


Insert offset folio 42 here HD58.040
43


Insert offset folio 43 here HD58.041
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF A MEMBER
OF THE BAR OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF DELAWARE:

GERARD F. GRAY

Petitioner

. § § § § § § § No. 74,2020

Submitted: February 24 , 2020
Decided: February 28 , 2020

ORDER

I t appears to the Court that:

(1) Pursuant to the Order of this Court dated December 9, 2016, Gerard F.

Gray, Esquire (“the Petitioner”) was publicly reprimanded and placed on a two

- year

period of probation with specific conditions. The Petitioner has filed a petition for

te rmination of probation.

(2) As required for termination of probation under Rule 20 (a) of the Delaware

Lawyers’ Rules of Disciplinary Procedure , the period of probation has expired and the

Petitioner has filed the necessary affidavit. The Office of Disciplina ry Counsel does

not oppose the termination of probation.2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the probationary period is

terminated and Gerard F. Gray, Esquire is discharged from probation.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery

- Reeves
Justice
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7209

JAMES EDWARD MILLER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MIKE PIERCE; DAVID PENDRY; BUTCH HOLLAND; TIM

CHEEK; RONNIE PRICE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen,

Senior District Judge. (5:99-cv-00050)

Submitted: May 30, 2007 Decided: June 15, 2007

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Edward Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Mason Thomas,

PATRICK, HARPER & DIXON, Hickory, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James Edward Miller appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint upon remand

from this court. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. Miller v. Pierce, No. 5:99-cv-00050 (W.D.N.C.

June 28, 2006). 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.

AFFIRMED
**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**





The
      undersigned, Lev Zaidenberg, the Chief
      Executive Officer of
      Energtek Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, under the standards set forth
      and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended September 30,
      2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in that Form
      10-Q
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company.





Dated:
      November 13, 2008




By:  /s/
      Lev
      Zaidenberg





Name:  Lev
      Zaidenberg


Title:  Chief
      Executive Officer and Director


(Principal
      Executive Officer)




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.
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.2

GRACECHURCH RECEIVABLES TRUSTEE LIMITED
Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002

I, Richard Francis Sommers, certify that:



|1. |  | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F, and all reports on Form
6-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of
periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Gracechurch
Receivables Trustee Limited;                                                                                                                                            
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  
|2. |  | Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, 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 as
of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;                                  
|  
|3. |  | Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required
to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is
included in these reports;                                                                                                                                                     
|  
|4. |  | I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer
under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based upon my
knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement,
and except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its
obligations under that agreement; and                                                          
|  
|5. |  | The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicers compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the
report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a
review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement.

|                                |  |                                               
|------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------
|By: /s/ Richard Francis Sommers
|                               
|Name:
Title:
Date:              |  | Richard Francis Sommers
Director
July 15, 2003
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vu Ngo, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 891]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, after a jury trial, of three counts of robbery in the first degree. His contention that the prosecutor unlawfully discriminated in the exercise of a peremptory challenge against a prospective juror is not preserved for our review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Roberts,*204 AD2d 974, 975, *lv denied*84 NY2d 871; *People v Harris,*151 AD2d 961), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see,*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Supreme Court properly rejected the contention of defendant that his detention at the hospital emergency room area was unlawful and that evidence obtained as the result of that detention should be suppressed. Defendant transported his brother to the hospital for treatment of a gunshot wound. A *996police officer who was at the hospital emergency room to investigate that shooting asked defendant his name and address and what he knew about the circumstances of his brother’s injury. That initial approach did not constitute an unlawful detention *(see, People v Hollman,*79 NY2d 181, 191; *People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210, 223; *People v Heston,*152 AD2d 999, *lv denied*76 NY2d 858, 940). Further, defendant was not detained for police purposes when the officer suggested that he wait in a smaller family room in the event that hospital personnel needed to talk with him. After several minutes, defendant left the room and walked outside the hospital. The officer followed and asked defendant to return to the emergency room area so he would be available to hospital personnel. Even assuming, arguendo, that the officer detained defendant in part because he had not completed his investigation of the factual circumstances of the brother’s shooting, the officer’s verbal request that defendant return to the emergency room area and the subsequent brief detention did not elevate the level of intrusion to a forcible detention or seizure of the person *(see, People v Bora,*83 NY2d 531, 535-536; *People v Bent,*206 AD2d 926, *Iv denied*84 NY2d 906). When another officer arrived at the hospital, following his investigation of a recent robbery and homicide committed not far from the hospital, the police had reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant had engaged in criminal activity, thereby justifying continued detention of him for a showup identification and questioning *(see, People v White,*183 AD2d 671, *Iv denied*80 NY2d 911). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wesley, J.— Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.
CONSENT OF MENDOZA BERGER & COMPANY, LLP
                    INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference and use in Annual Report on Form
10-K under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of Integrated Communication
Networks, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999, of our report on the
consolidated financial statements of Integrated Communication Networks, Inc.
(formerly, Global Access Pagers, Inc.) for the year ended December 31, 1999 and
to the reference to us under the heading Part II, Item 9 - Changes in and
Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure, Form 10-K
for Integrated Communication Networks, Inc.



/s/ Mendoza Berger & Company, LLP
----------------------------------
Mendoza Berger & Company, LLP
Laguna Hills, California

Dated: April 13, 2000
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLENN T. MASON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1123 FCD PAN P

vs.

M. SANDHAM, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On August 28, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-01123-FCD-EFB Document 79 Filed 09/15/06 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 28, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Defendant Runnel’s September 30, 2005, motion for judgment on the

pleadings is granted; and

3. Defendants’ November 9, 2005, motion for judgment on the pleadings is

granted as to defendant Jackson and denied as to defendants Wilson, James, Roche, Stovall and

Hlusak.

DATED:September 15, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01123-FCD-EFB Document 79 Filed 09/15/06 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the Worldspan, L.P. (the “Company”) Quarterly Report on Form10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Rakesh Gangwal,Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Kevin W.Mooney, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to the best of our knowledge:

 

(1).                                                       The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

(2).                                                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  | May  13, 2005 |   | By:    |   | /s/  Rakesh Gangwal                              |   |
|--------|---------------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |          |   |   |   | Rakesh  Gangwal                                  |
|   |          |   |   |   | Chairman,  President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |          |   |   |   |                                             |
| Date:  | May  13, 2005 |   | By:    |   | /s/  Kevin W. Mooney                             |   |
|   |          |   |   |   | Kevin  W. Mooney                                 |
|   |          |   |   |   | Chief  Financial Officer                         |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signaturethat appears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

FARAH ELIAS AKELL,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-17-00034-CR

Appeal from the

34th District Court 

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20140D01224) 

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 55 (Thursday, March 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13510-13511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5242]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CO-922-07-1310-FI; COC64230]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas 
Lease.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a 
petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease COC64230 from Tatonka 
Oil and Gas Company, LLC for lands in Moffat County, Colorado. The 
petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due 
since the date the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Milada 
Krasilinec, Land Law Examiner, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, 
at 303.239.3767.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee has agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $20.00 per acre or fraction 
thereof, per year and 18\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessee has 
paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the 
Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has 
met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in 
Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 
U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to 
reinstate lease COC64230 effective December 1, 2006, under the original 
terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty 
rates cited above.


[[Page 13511]]


    Dated: March 15, 2007.
Milada Krasilinec,
Land Law Examiner.
[FR Doc. E7-5242 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
exhibit101listofsubsidiaries.htm - Generated by SEC Publisher for SEC Filing







 





List of Subsidiaries of Show King Holdings
Inc.


 


GUI
Corporation., a California Corporation 


Mega
Show Corp., a Nevada Coporation
AAM-12-398-E 

June 25, 2012 

 Exemption No. 10574 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0567 

Mr. William Richards 

45 Sand Hill Road 

Gardiner, NY 12525 

Dear Mr. Richards: 

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

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the list of conditions and limitations of the 

exemption, including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated May 18, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for 

an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent 

necessary to allow you to cover your safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol 

testing program. 

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 you. 

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

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one 

would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 
2 

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. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

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 you an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent 

necessary to allow you, who is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover your 

safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the conditions and 

limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Your employees are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while 

conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

your part 135 operations, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on July 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/S/ 

James R Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NO VEMBER 7, 2019

NO. 03

- 18

- 00272

- CV

Nima Amini, Appellant

v.

Spicewood Springs Animal Hospital, LLC; and Dr. Barak Benaryeh, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF T RAVIS COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND SMITH REVERSED AND REMANDED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal of th e trial court ’ s denial o f Appellant ’ s mo tion to dismiss by operation of law

.
Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible

error in the court’s de nial

. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s denial and re nders

judgment granting Appellant ’ s motion to dismiss. The Court remands the case to the trial cou rt

for fu rther proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion and the Texas Citizens Participation

Ac t

. A ppell ee s shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court

b e low.