alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
815 A.2d 815

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, 100 Community Place Suite 3301, Crownsville, Maryland 21032, Petitioner, v. ELIZABETH PRICE, Respondent.

Misc. AG No. 65,

Sept. Term, 2002.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Feb. 4, 2003.

*ORDER*

This matter came before the Court upon the presentation of certified copies of the judgments of conviction of Elizabeth Price for perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1621 and for making a false statement in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 408A3. The Supreme Court of California accepted Elizabeth Price’s resignation from the Bar of California.

On September 30, 2002, this Court issued a show cause order which directed Bar Counsel and the Respondent to show cause in writing based upon any of the grounds set forth in Maryland Rule 16-773(e) why Respondent should not be disbarred by this Court, provided a copy of that order be personally served on Elizabeth Price on or before October 30, 2002.

Respondent was served with the show cause order and a copy of the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, with attachments, on October 30, 2002. In a letter dated January 27, 2003, counsel for respondent stated that respondent had no objection to the entry of an order by the Court disbarring respondent from the practice of law in Maryland. It is therefore, this 4th day of February, 2003,

*689ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that Elizabeth Price be and she is hereby disbarred by consent from the practice of law in Maryland and it is

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall remove the name of Elizabeth Price from the register of attorneys in the Court and certify that fact to the Client Protection Fund and all Clerks of the judicial tribunals in this State in accordance with Maryland Rule 16-773(d).
#### Robert Rowan Derrick VON COOLEY, Jr., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43083.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 15, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 269 So.2d 444.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ„ concur.
US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 1st QUARTER 2016

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

ANNOUNCEMENT AUCTION SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE DATE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT MONEY

4-WK 3-MO 6-MO 12-MO

4-WEEK AND 12/31 1/4 1/7 30.00 30.00 26.00 100.00 -14.00

3&6&12 MO BILLS 1/7 1/11 1/13 30.00 30.00 26.00 25.00 74.00 37.00

1/14 1/18 1/20 30.00 30.00 26.00 80.00 6.00

1/21 1/25 1/27 40.00 30.00 26.00 80.00 16.00

1/28 2/1 2/3 40.00 30.00 26.00 107.00 -11.00

2/4 2/8 2/10 50.00 30.00 26.00 25.00 82.00 49.00

2/11 2/15 2/17 50.00 30.00 26.00 84.00 22.00

2/18 2/22 2/24 50.00 30.00 26.00 94.00 12.00

2/25 2/29 3/2 40.00 30.00 26.00 119.00 -23.00

3/3 3/7 3/10 30.00 30.00 26.00 25.00 102.00 9.00

3/10 3/14 3/17 30.00 30.00 26.00 100.00 -14.00

3/17 3/21 3/24 30.00 30.00 26.00 100.00 -14.00

1197.00 1122.00 75.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

CMB Funds: 0.00

COUPONS

CHANGE

3-year Note 1/7 1/12 1/15 24.00 0.00

10-year Note ® 1/7 1/13 1/15 21.00 0.00

30-year Bond ® 1/7 1/14 1/15 13.00 0.00 52.44 5.56

10-year TIPS 1/14 1/21 1/29 15.00 0.00 0.00 15.00

2-year note 1/21 1/26 2/1 26.00 0.00

5-year note 1/21 1/27 2/1 35.00 0.00

7-year note 1/21 1/28 2/1 29.00 0.00

2-year FRN 1/21 1/27 2/1 15.00 0.00 108.70 -3.70

3-year Note 2/3 2/9 2/16 24.00 0.00

10-year Note 2/3 2/10 2/16 24.00 0.00

30-year Bond 2/3 2/11 2/16 16.00 0.00 59.27 4.73

2-year FRN ® 2/18 2/24 2/29 13.00 0.00

30-year TIPS 2/11 2/18 2/29 9.00 0.00

2-year note 2/18 2/23 2/29 26.00 0.00

5-year note 2/18 2/24 2/29 35.00 0.00

7-year note 2/18 2/25 2/29 29.00 0.00 92.17 19.83

3-year Note 3/3 3/8 3/15 24.00 0.00

10-year Note ® 3/3 3/9 3/15 21.00 0.00

30-year Bond ® 3/3 3/10 3/15 13.00 0.00 32.00 26.00

2-year FRN ® 3/17 3/23 3/31 13.00 0.00

2-year note 3/17 3/22 3/31 26.00 0.00

5-year note 3/17 3/23 3/31 35.00 0.00

7-year note 3/17 3/24 3/31 29.00 0.00

10-year TIPS ® 3/10 3/17 3/31 13.00 0.00 93.71 22.29

528.00 438.29 89.71

Estimates are italicized. R = Reopening

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 165
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Henry ANDERSON, Jr.

No. 61241.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 5, 1978.

In re: Henry Anderson, Jr., applying for writ of review. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied. The appeal is pending. LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 363.
AFS-12-459-E 

July 12, 2012 

 Exemption No.10567A 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0504 

Mr. Tim Drake 

Director of Training 

PEOPLExpress Airlines, Inc. 

902 Bland Boulevard 

Newport News, VA 23602 

Dear Mr. Drake: 

This letter is to inform you that we have amended our decision for Exemption 

No. 10567. It transmits our decision and explains its basis. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated May 1, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of PEOPLExpress Airlines, Inc. (PEOPLExpress) for an exemption from 

§ 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent 

necessary to allow PEOPLExpress to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman 

or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in 

command (PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 

during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and landing. On June 21, 2012, the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued Exemption No. 10567 to PEOPLExpress 

Airlines, Inc. (PEOPLExpress). That document was issued in error. 

We apologize for any inconvenience this has caused. The document that should have 

been sent to you should not have been a grant, but a denial. The FAA has issued a 

denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented 

in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 10430 (copy enclosed), the FAA found 

that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest and would not provide a 

level of safety equivalent to that provided by the current regulations. The FAA 

considered it necessary to require the PIC to be observed by an FAA inspector during at 
2 

least one flight leg of initial operating experience, which includes a takeoff and landing, 

if the certificate holder uses a course of training in an airplane simulator as provided in 

§ 121.409(c). That requirement was set forth in Amendment 121-91 and has continued 

in effect until the present. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed 

Denial of Exemption No. 10430; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial of Exemption 

No. 10430 also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption would not be 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 deny the petition of PEOPLExpress 

Airlines, Inc. for an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.434(c)(1)(ii). 

Sincerely, 

/S/ 

John M. Allen 

Director, Flight Standards Service 

Enclosure
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2011 - 1092 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2011 -NM - 111 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Jerry CROOKS, Appellee.

No. 77-2065.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 17, 1978.

*895Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., _ . i, . *j >*Tampa, for appellant.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed. See *State v. Opitz,*357 So.2d 409 (Fla.2d DCA 1978) and *Sowell v. State,*342 So.2d 969 (Fla.1977) as to constitutionality of Section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1976).

BOARDMAN, C. J., and OTT and RYDER, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,071
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,246
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (944)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,031
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,987
<PP&E>                                         470,852
<DEPRECIATION>                                  93,535
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 436,494
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,944
<BONDS>                                        151,650
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,044
<COMMON>                                         9,008
<OTHER-SE>                                     106,533
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   436,494
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,562
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,775
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (7,294)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,837
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,244
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,943
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,301
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,301
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.03
        

</TABLE>
#### Stuart BOTWINIK, Individually, Petitioner, v. Severina Fernandez RIERA, and Allstate Insurance Company, a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the State of Florida, Respondents.

No. 44076.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 11, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7901

ANTHONY ANDREWS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. BRYAN K. DOBBS, Warden FCI Williamsburg , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 6:20

- cv - 03026

- DCN )

Submitted : May 4, 2021 Decided: May 26, 2021

Before KEENAN, WYNN , and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Anthony Andrews , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Andrews appeals the district court’s order denyi ng relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We review de novo a district court’s order denying a § 2241 petition.
Fontanez v. O’Brien , 807 F.3d 84, 86 (4th Cir. 2015). The district court declin ed to address the merits of Andrews’ claims because it deter mined that Andrews’ § 2241 petition was duplicative of the matters pending in the sentencing court and on direct appeal from that
court. We acknowledge the overlap between his § 2241 arguments and his direct appeal. Despite that overlap, the arguments here are not identical to those made in his direct appeal and they appear to be proper for a § 2241 claim. See Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Gross , 468 F.3d 199, 206

- 07 & n.6 (4th Cir. 2006); Smith v. SEC , 129 F.3d 356, 361 (6th Cir. 1997). However, even if Andrews is correct that the district court should have addressed the merits of his petition, “we may affirm a district court’s ruling on any ground apparent in the record.” United States ex rel. Drakeford v. Tuomey , 792 F.3d 364, 375 (4th Cir. 2015). Andrews ’ ar guments fail on the merits. He is not entitled to good

- time credits on his revocation sentence because the district court sentenced him to 12 months’ imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1). Under § 3624(b)(1), a prisoner is only entitled to good

- time cr edit if he is “serving a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year.” Id

. We do not read United States v. Haymond , 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019) to allow Andrews to use the time he served on supervised release for his 2001 conviction as a credit for the prison sentence imposed in 2018 for new criminal conduct. See Kidd v. Fikes , No. 20

- cv - 287 (SRN/TNL), 2020 WL 7210025, at *3 (D. Minn. Aug. 17, 2 020) (collecting cases). Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order.3 Last, w e deny Andrews’ motion to proceed by pseudonym. This issue was raised for the first time on appeal and Andrews does not offer evidence of exceptional circumstances that woul d justify reversing the district court on this issue. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
#### Dr. Arnold V. PENT, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF APPEAL, COMMISSIONER’S FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF ORANGE COUNTY, Florida, et al., Respondents.

No. 73-1324.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 30, 1974.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



                          Independent Auditors' Consent


The Stockholders and the
   Board of Directors of
   JSB Financial, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation  by reference in the  Registration  Statements (Nos.
33-37217,  33-36491  and  33-36490)  on Form S-8 of JSB  Financial,  Inc. of our
report  dated  January 29,  1998,  relating to the  consolidated  statements  of
financial  condition of JSB  Financial,  Inc. and  subsidiary as of December 31,
1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
stockholders'  equity  and cash  flows for each of the  years in the  three-year
period ended December 31, 1997, which report is incorporated by reference to the
December 31, 1997 Annual Report on Form 10-K of JSB Financial, Inc.



                                               KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Jericho, New York
March 27, 1998
#### Martha GLOVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-1046.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 28, 2002.

Filed Aug. 8, 2002.

Before HANSEN, Chief Judge, BRIGHT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Martha Glover appeals a final decision of the district court1 denying her disability insurance benefits (DIB) under Title II and supplemental security income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We affirm.

Ms. Glover claimed disability due to pain in her right elbow, left leg, and back. Her claims were denied initially and on reconsideration by the agency. Subsequently, the administrative law judge (ALJ), after a hearing in which appellant was represented by counsel, denied her claims based on a determination that she could perform other work than her prior employment, which other work exists within the national economy. That ALJ decision became the final decision of the Commissioner when *34the appeals council denied Ms. Glover’s request for review. On appeal to the district court, the parties stipulated that a final decision should be made by the magistrate judge. *See*28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73.

Magistrate Judge Ray made a careful review of the record and determined that the ALJ’s specific finding is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole that Ms. Glover could perform a range of light work that exists in the national economy.

On appeal, Ms. Glover contends that the ALJ did not properly shift the burden of proof to the agency to show that she could do other work in the national economy and that the ALJ did not properly evaluate her subjective complaints.

We reject these contentions as without substantial merit and affirm substantially on the basis of the magistrate judge’s well-reasoned opinion. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

Affirmed.

1

. The Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Exhibit 31.1 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 17 CFR SECTION 240.13a-14

 

I, Michael German, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Corning Natural Gas Corporation; 

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 quarterly 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)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

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 function):

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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

QUALITY BUILDERS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., and

JEZERIAH WEBB,

Appellants,

v.

RUSSELL JACOBS and CHERYL ABER,

Appellees.

No. 4D2024-0008

[August 22, 2024]

Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Fabienne Elizabeth Fahnestock, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. CACE21-001840.

Harry Malka of Malka & Kravitz, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Michael L Cotzen of Cotzen Law, Aventura, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, DAMOORGIAN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>


                                                                      Exhibit 23

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by 
reference of our report dated January 30, 1996 (except with respect to the 
matters discussed in paragraph 11 of Note 16, as to which the date is March 
22, 1996), included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed 
Registration Statement No. 33-56942 and Post-Effective Amendment No. 1-C to 
Registration Statement No. 33-33687 relating to the Automatic Dividend 
Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan of the Company, Post-Effective Amendment 
No. 2-B to Registration Statement No. 33-33687 relating to the Employee 
Common Stock Purchase Plan of the Company, Post-Effective Amendment No. One 
to Registration Statement No. 33-38557 relating to the Omnibus Long-Term 
Incentive Plan of the Company, Registration Statement No. 33-56525 relating 
to the Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors of the Company, and 
Registration Statement No. 33-60765 relating to the Deferred Stock 
Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors of the Company.

                             /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                             -----------------------
                             Arthur Andersen LLP

Louisville, Kentucky
March 27, 1996
#### Aaron Patrick BALDREE, Jr., Appellant, v. Frances Prince BALDREE, Appellee.

No. 70-698.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 27, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 18, 1971.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed.
#### Arthur Coleman SEWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-623.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 9, 1970.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Palm Beach County; Russell H. McIntosh, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.