alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Bobby A. WEBB, Respondent.

No. 39221.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 4, 1970.

Wm. O. E. Henry, Bartow, for The Florida Bar, complainant.

Harry E. King, Winter Haven, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We have received the following judgment of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar which is founded upon respondent’s repeated violations of Article XI, Rule 11.02(3) of the Integration Rule, 32 F.S.A. Canons 11 and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, and Rule 1 of Additional Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Florida:

> “JUDGMENT

> “This cause came on for review and consideration by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar upon the report of its referee and the record of proceedings before him.

> *201“The Florida Bar’s Complaint contained three charges of embezzlement of clients’ trust funds involving many thousands of dollars.

> “After trial, the referee found the respondent guilty as charged and recommended that he be disbarred.

> “In particular the Board finds that the respondent held in trust funds of the Estate of Edna W. Moore, deceased, in the amount of $8,231.55. During the year 1968, the respondent converted said funds to his own use, and there remains due and owing to the executrix of said estate the amount of $8,231.55, which is unpaid.

> “The Board further finds that the respondent represented Marjorie V. Brown and held some $9,000.00 of her property in trust at the time of her death in August, 1968. The respondent has failed to account to the estate of said deceased client and remains indebted to the Estate of Marjorie V. Brown in the net amount of $8,787.47. This misappropriation also occurred during 1968.

> “The Board further finds that the respondent received, in trust, certain negotiable securities which were the property of the Estate of Helen T. Pringle, deceased, during September, 1968. Subsequently the respondent converted said securities to his own use and has failed to restore the securities to the estate or to account to his client, the executrix, for the value of said bonds. The respondent continues to be indebted to the Estate of Helen T. Pringle in the amount of $17,000.00 because of said misappropriation.

> "The Board of Governors has considered the entire record and finds the respondent guilty as charged and directs that he be disbarred.

> “DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of December, 1969.”

Respondent admits to all charges levied against him. He has declined to file a response or to seek appearance before this Court. The most that can be said in respondent’s behalf is that he has been laboring under a difficult family situation which has been exacerbated by his wife’s continuing serious illness.

We conclude that there is no reason to disturb the judgment of the Board of Governors. The respondent Bobby A. Webb, is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in this State, and the costs of proceedings in this matter in the amount of $126.25 are hereby taxed against him.

It is is ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
255 La. 237

#### STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. Ferdinand J. DEROUEN, Sr.

No. 50319.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 20, 1970.

In re: Ferdinand J. Derouen, Sr., applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of St. Landry. 228 So.2d 659.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
EXHIBIT
31.2




CERTIFICATIONS




I, Cheung
Wai Hung, Eddie, certify that:




1. I have
reviewed this Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008, of Innocom
Technology Holdings, Inc.:




2. Based
on my knowledge, this 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 this report;




3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:




(a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;




(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and




(c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and




5. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small
business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):




(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and




(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting.





Date:
      December 11, 2008
                      /s/
      Cheung Wai Hung, EddieCheung
      Wai Hung, Eddie, Chief Financial
Officer
Exhibit 31.1
 Certification
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Central Bancorp, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    /s/ John D. DohertyJohn D. DohertyChairman and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Douglas H. POLK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-340.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Oct. 22, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48641-48642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24457]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-516-000]


Viking Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

September 10, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 8, 1997, Viking Gas Transmission 
Company (Viking) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet to become 
effective October 8, 1997:

Third Revised Sheet No. 86


[[Page 48642]]


    Viking states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the 
Commission's requirements set forth in Order No. 636-C, Pipeline 
Service Obligations and Revisions to Regulations Governing Self-
Implementing Transportation under Part 284 of the Commission's 
Regulations, Docket No. RM91-11-006 and Regulation of Natural Gas 
Pipelines after Partial Wellhead Decontrol, Docket No. RM87-34-072, 78 
FERC para. 61,186 (1997) issued on February 27, 1997. Accordingly, 
Viking has revised the contract matching term cap provided for under 
its right-of-first-refusal provisions to reflect the new five year 
maximum cap required by the Commission in Order No. 636-C.
    Viking states that copies of the filing have been mailed to all of 
its jurisdictional customers and to affected state regulatory 
commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure. All such motions or protests must be filed 
in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-24457 Filed 9-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL BROWN, :

:

Plaintiff : No. 4:05-CV-0710

:

vs. : (Petition Filed 4/8/05)

:

PA BOARD OF PROBATION : (Judge Muir)

& PAROLE, et al., :

:

Defendants :

 ORDER

 May 12, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

On April 8, 2005, Plaintiff Michael Brown, formerly an

inmate incarcerated for 18 months as the result of a parole

violation filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (“Parole Board”),

unnamed parole agents and the attorney that represented him before

the Parole Board. This case was assigned to us but referred to

Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt for preliminary consideration. 

On April 22, 2005, after screening Brown’s complaint

pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Magistrate

Judge Blewitt issued a report in which he recommended that Brown’s

complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim and because it

seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

relief.

Objections to the report of a Magistrate Judge may be

filed within 10 days after the report is served on the parties. 

Case 4:05-cv-00710-MM Document 5 Filed 05/12/05 Page 1 of 3
2

M.D. Pa. Local Rule 72.31. Brown has not filed objections to the

report of Magistrate Judge Blewitt. The matter became ripe for

decision on May 9, 2005. When no objections are filed to the

report of a Magistrate Judge, we need only review that report as

we in our discretion deem appropriate. Thomas vs. Arn, 474 U.S.

140, 151-52 (1985). 

In a 14-page report Magistrate Judge Blewitt explained

why Brown’s complaint should be dismissed and we will not repeat

the basis for his recommendation other than noting that the Parole

Board as a state agency is not an entity subject to suit under §

1983, Brown does not make any specific allegations against the

unnamed parole agents sufficient to implicate their personal

involvement in any violation of Brown’s constitutional rights, the

parole agents who presented the case to the Parole Board were

acting in an prosecutorial capacity and are immune from suit, and

Brown’s former defense attorney is not a state actor subject to

suit under § 1983. 

We find no error in Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s report

and because no objections have been filed to it, we shall adopt it

as our own. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The report of Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt

filed on April 22, 2005, is adopted in toto.

2. Brown’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii).

Case 4:05-cv-00710-MM Document 5 Filed 05/12/05 Page 2 of 3
3

3. The Clerk of Court shall close this case and send a

copy of this order to Magistrate Judge Blewitt.

4. Any appeal from this order will be deemed frivolous,

without probable cause and not taken in good faith.

 s/Malcolm Muir MUIR

United States District Judge

MM:gs

Case 4:05-cv-00710-MM Document 5 Filed 05/12/05 Page 3 of 3
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 20433

U.S. METALS, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INCORPORATED, doing business as Liberty Insurance Corporation,

Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Di strict of Texas USDC No. 4:12

- CV

- 379

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, OWEN , Circuit Judge, and MORGAN ∗ , District Judge. PER CURIAM: * * This appeal arises from a dispute between U.S. Metals, Inc. , (“U

. S

. Metals”) and Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. , (“Liberty”) regarding coverage of certain damages pursuant to two exclusions in a commercial general liability insurance policy (the “CGL Policy” or “Policy” )

. The district court granted

∗ District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

* * Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 11, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-20433 Document: 00513586145 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2016No. 13

- 20433

2 summary judgment for Liberty on U

. S

. Metals’s indemnity claim , in part, on the ground that Exclusion M in the Policy precludes coverage for “damage that occur[ed] during the replacement process to property other than [the flanges ]

— in this case, the temperature coating, the gaskets, the piping, and the insulation.” In a prior opinion, we certified four questions to the Supreme Court of Texas regarding the proper interpretation of the Policy. See U.S. Metals, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Grp., Inc. , 58 9 F. App’x 659, 663

– 64 (5th Cir. 2014)

. In answering our certified questions, the Sup reme Court of Texas stated: [t] he diesel units were restored to use by replacing the flanges and were therefore impaired property to which Exclusion M appli es. Thus, their loss of use is not covered by the policy. But the insulation and gaskets destroyed in the process were not restored to use; they were replaced. They were therefore not impaired property to which Exclusion M applied, and the cost of repla cing them was therefore covered by the policy. U.S. Metals, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Grp., Inc. , No. 14

- 0753, 2015 WL 7792557, at

* 7 (Tex. Dec. 4, 2015), reh’ g denied (June 17, 2016)

. The district court therefore erred in its holding regarding its interpretation of E xclus ion M in the CGL Policy. Because the district court’s holdings regarding all of U

. S

. Metals’s
claims relate to the interpretation of the Policy ’s coverage and exclusions , we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings consistent wit h the Supreme Court of Texas’s opinion

. Case: 13-20433 Document: 00513586145 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2016
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 158 (Friday, August 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 43766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21687]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Economic Injury Disaster #9577]


State of Tennessee; (and Contiguous Counties in North Carolina)

    Cocke County and the contiguous Counties of Greene, Hamblen, 
Jefferson, and Sevier in the State of Tennessee, and Haywood, Madison, 
and Swain Counties in the State of North Carolina constitute an 
economic injury disaster loan area as a result of a rockslide that 
occurred on July 1, 1997, on the North Carolina side of Interstate 40 
and closed it to all east and west traffic. Eligible small businesses 
and small agricultural cooperatives without credit available elsewhere 
may file applications for economic injury assistance for this disaster 
until the close of business on May 6, 1998, at the address listed below 
or other locally announced locations:

U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 2 Office, One 
Baltimore Place, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308

    The interest rate for eligible small businesses and small 
agricultural cooperatives is 4 percent.
    The economic injury number for North Carolina is 957800.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59002.)

    Dated: August 6, 1997.
Ginger Lew,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-21687 Filed 8-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
### Dispersal of plating wastes and sewage contaminants in ground water and surface water, South Farmingdale-Massapequa area, Nassau County, New York

By: Nathaniel M. PerlmutterMaxim Lieber

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1879G

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
1 ... T h i s pr oce edi n g a r i s es ou t of Cau s e N o. 2007- CR
- 6053, s t y l ed The St at e of Tex as v. D er r i ck

L. Robi ns on , p end i ng i n t he 1 8 6 t h Jud i ci al D i st ri ct C o urt , B exar C o unt y , T exas, t he H o no rable M ari a T eresa H err p res i d i ng. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No . 0 4- 08 -0 08 80 -C R IN RE Der

rick RO BIN SON Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Justi ce

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Deliver ed and f

iled: Dece mber 17, 2008 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED On Dec ember 3 , 2 0 0 8 , rela tor filed an A pplication for L eave to File Petition for Writ of Mandamus. No leave is r equire d to file a pe tition for writ of mandamus; there fore , we DENY the application for

leave to file as moot. On Dec ember

3, 2 0 0 8 , re l ator filed a

petition for writ of manda mus, complaining that the responde nt h as n o t ru l ed on ce rtain motions filed in his criminal procee ding. Counsel ha s been
a pp oin te d to re pr e se nt r e la tor in t he tr ia l c ourt . We c on c lud e th at a pp oin te d c ouns e l f

or re la tor is
a lso his c ouns e l for a n ori g ina l pro c e e din g on the iss ue s p re se nte d. Re la tor is n ot e nti tle d to hy

br id repr esenta tion. Se e Pa tri c k v . S tat e , 906 S.W .2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The abse nce of04
- 08
- 00 88 0- CR

- 2- a rig ht to hy

brid repr esenta tion mea

ns relator’s pro se petition f or writ of mandamus will be treated as pre senting nothing f

or this court’s c onsideration. See id. ; see also Gray v. Shipley , 877 S.W .2d 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t D i s t . ] 1 994, orig . proce eding ). Consequently , this court has deter mined that rela

tor is not entitled to the re lief soug ht. There fore , the petition is DENI ED. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a). PER C URI AM Do not publish
#### David G. BOGLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-642.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 21, 1971.

C. J. Abernathy, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Warren H. Petersen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Cross v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 324, and Hunt v. State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 212.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.