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

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

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

to press. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 21-BG-717

IN RE SCOTT ADKINS

2019 DDN 151

A Suspended Member of the Bar of the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 980220

BEFORE: Thompson* and Beckwith, Associate Judges, and Fisher, Senior Judge. 

O R D E R

(FILED— December 23, 2021)

On consideration of the certified order from the Supreme Court of California 

disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction; this court’s

October 29, 2021, order suspending respondent pending resolution of this matter and 

directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; and 

the statement of Disciplinary Counsel; and it appearing that respondent failed to file 

either a response to this court’s order to show cause or his D.C. Bar R. XI, §14(g)

affidavit, it is 

ORDERED that Scott Adkins is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in 

the District of Columbia. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s 

disbarment will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully 

complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g). 

PER CURIAM
*Judge Thompson’s term expired on September 4, 2021, and she will continue 

to serve as an Associate Judge until her successor is confirmed. See D.C. Code § 

11-1502 (2012 Repl.). She was qualified and appointed on October 4, 2021, to 

perform judicial duties as a Senior Judge and will begin her service as a Senior Judge 

on a date to be determined after her successor is appointed and qualifies.
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 accompanying Annual Report of Lafayette Square Mid-Atlantic BDC, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Report”), I, Damien Dwin, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


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


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





Date: March 25, 2022By:/s/ Damien DwinDamien DwinPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 20079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7901]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 66667; March 28, 2012]


 Securities Exchange Act of 1934; In the Matter of the NASDAQ 
Stock Market LLC; Order Granting Petition for Review and Scheduling 
Filing of Statements

    Pursuant to Rule 431 of the Rules of Practice,\1\ it is ordered 
that the petition of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC for review of the 
order disapproving by delegated authority File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-010 
\2\ is granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 201.431.
    \2\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65362 (September 20, 
2011), 76 FR 59466 (September 26, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is ordered, pursuant to Rule 431 that any party or other person 
may file a statement in support of or in opposition to the action made 
by delegated authority on or before April 18, 2012.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-7901 Filed 4-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DANIEL AARON STONE , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. R. Bryan Harwell , Chief District Judge. ( 4:06

- cr - 00474

- RBH

- 1 )

Submitted : October 17, 2019 Decided: October 22, 2019

Before MOTZ and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Daniel Aaron Stone, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Daniel Aaron Stone se eks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his counseled 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonab le jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or
wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on p rocedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S.
at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed th e record and conclude that Stone has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Mathis , 932 F.3d 242, 266 (4th Cir. 2019) (concluding “ that Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a crime of violence ” under the force provision in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) (2012)). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 decisio nal process.
DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Jeffrey Kornblum, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Odimo Incorporated;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: November 13, 2006 /s/ Jeffrey Kornblum   Jeffrey Kornblum   President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 66 (Thursday, April 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20688-20689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8190]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Seventh Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 225, Rechargeable Lithium 
Batteries and Battery Systems, Small and Medium Size

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 225, Rechargeable Lithium 
Batteries and Battery Systems, Small and Medium Size.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
seventh meeting of RTCA Special Committee 225, Rechargeable Lithium 
Batteries and Battery Systems, Small and Medium Size.

DATES: The meeting will be held May 1-3, 2012, from 9 a.m.-5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street, 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 225. The agenda will 
include the following:

May 1, 2012

    <bullet> Introductions and administrative items.

[[Page 20689]]

    <bullet> Review agenda.
    <bullet> Review and approval of summary from last plenary meeting.
    <bullet> Review SC-225 schedule for Plenaries, working group 
meetings, and document preparation.
    <bullet> Review action items.
    <bullet> Working Group Meeting--Review draft document.
    <bullet> Review new action items.
    <bullet> Review agenda for tomorrow

May 2, 2012

    <bullet> Review Agenda, other actions
    <bullet> Review agenda for tomorrow.
    <bullet> Working Group Meeting--Review draft document

May 3, 2012

    <bullet> Review agenda, other actions.
    <bullet> Verify dates of next plenary and upcoming working group 
meetings.
    <bullet> Establish Agenda for next plenary meeting.
    <bullet> Working Group Meeting--Review draft document.
    <bullet> Working Group report, review progress and actions.
    <bullet> Review all action items.
    <bullet> Adjourn
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 29, 2012.
John Raper,
Manager, Business Operations Branch, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-8190 Filed 4-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            
            
            U.S. Air Force
                    U.S. Air Force
        Search
                    Search AF.mil:
                        Search
                Search AF.mil:
                    Search
    News
    
        Commentaries

    Features

    Photos

    Art

    Air Force TV

    Radio

    Week in Photos

    Coronavirus Disease 2019

    Air Force Art Collection





    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Adjunct Professors

    Fact Sheets

    Commander's Call Topics    
        CCT Archive

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    The Book

    Speeches Archive    
        Former AF Top 3 Viewpoints and Speeches

    Air Force Warrior Games 2019

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    DoD Warrior Games

    Portraits in Courage    
        Portraits In Courage Vol. I

    Portraits In Courage Vol. II

    Portraits In Courage Vol. III

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IV

    Portraits In Courage Vol. V

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VI

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VIII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IX

    Portraits In Courage Vol. X

    Chapman MoH

    The Air Force We Need

    Events 2021

    Focus on Priorities

    Empowered Airmen

    State Licensure Portability

    CSAF Leadership Library    
        CSAF Leadership Library Bookshelf

    2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List





    AF Sites
    
        Social Media Sites

    Site Registration





    AF Content Management





    Careers





    Contact Us  
 Home
  News
  Photos
 Air Force Photos Search
 Search
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Full Size (0.86 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 Quick Links
                            Join the Air ForceSite MapQuestionsContact UsRSSFOIAIGAF SitesAccessibilityEEOLink DisclaimerStrategic APRSuicide PreventionSAPRUSA.govNo FEAR ActOSI Tip Line
                    Connect
                    Official United States Air Force Website
                        Subscribe to USAF News and Information
          Submit
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Clifton O. FORD.

No. 87-K-0746.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1987.

In re Clifton 0. Ford, applying for reconsideration of an order denied May 29,1987, 506 So.2d 1224, to the 3rd Circuit Court of *1146Appeal, No. CR86-0852; Parish of LaSalle, 28th Judicial District Court, Nos. 33927 and 34267.

Denied.
# Pacific

P.O. Box 20280 Mesa, Arizona 85277-0280

VIAELECTRONICMAIL Mr. Dennis DeVany, EssentialAir Service Chief June 30, 2011

US Department ofTransportation EAS and DomesticAnalysis Division 1200New JerseyAvenue, SE W86-471 Washington, DC 20590 DearMr. DeVany, 

# L.L.C.
(888) 575-4546 Toll Free www.pacificwings.com

As you know, Pacific Wings has been attempting to gain access to airline terminal facilities at Nashville International Airport, necessary to support Essential Air Service, for more than two years without success. We have repeatedly requested assistance from the FAA Airports District Office andUSDOT Office of the Secretary; however, we have been unable to procure .counter or gate space at BNA on reasonable terms. Despite apparent non-compliance by the airport sponsor with federal Airport Grant Assurance 39, barriers to access continue to impede and frustrate our service delivery efforts. Therefore, we are providing you with this 90-day notice of our intent to terminate service to Jackson, Tennessee and Owensboro, Kentucky from Nashville, effective September 30, 2011. fully,

# G~**i~hlstor;~** ChiefExecutill€-Officer PacificWings, L.L.C.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 32

Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives

and a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 14, 2001

Mr. SAXTON submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of

Representatives and a conditional recess or adjournment

of the Senate.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Wednesday, February 14, 2001, it stand ad4 journed until 2 p.m. on Monday, February 26, 2001, and

5 that when the House adjourns on Monday, February 26,

6 2001, it stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday,

7 February 27, 2001, for morning-hour debate, or until

8 noon on the second day after Members are notified to reas9 semble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,

10 whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses
2

•HCON 32 ATH

1 or adjourns at the close of business on Thursday, Feb2 ruary 15, 2001, or Friday, February 16, 2001, on a mo3 tion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its

4 Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or ad5 journed until noon on Monday, February 26, 2001, or

6 until such time on that day as may be specified by its

7 Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess

8 or adjourn, or until noon on the second day after Members

9 are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this

10 concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.

11 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

12 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

13 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead14 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House

15 and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in

16 their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Æ
# S **upreme C**  **ourt of**  **T exas** 

══════════ No. 21

- 0106

══════════ Benjamin “B.J.” Reynolds, Mark Mewshaw, Wes Hobbs, and Terra Energy Partners, LLC , Petitioner s ,

v

. Sanchez Oil and Gas Corporation, e t al

. , Respondent s

═══════════════════════════ ══ ══════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas

═══════════════════════════ ══ ══════════

PER CURIAM

Under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) , a party may move to dismiss certain “legal actions” within sixty days of being served.
T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE § 27.003(b). We held last term that, to the extent an amended or supplemental pleading either (1) adds a new party or parties, (2) alleges new essential facts to support previously asserted claims, or (3) asserts new legal claims or theories involving different elements than the claims or theories previously asserted, the new pleading asserts a new legal ac tion and triggers a new sixty

- day period as to those new parties, facts, or claims.2 Montelongo v. Abrea , 622 S.W.3d 290, 293

- 94 (Tex. 2021). The same day we issued Montelongo , we also reaffirmed that an earlier petition sufficiently pleads a legal action “only if the petition gives fair notice of the claim involved.” Kinder Morgan SACROC, LP v. Scurry County , 622 S.W.3d 835, 849 (Tex. 2021). In a decision issued before we decided Montelongo and Kinder Morgan , the court of appeals held in this case that th e plaintiffs ’ second amended petition did not assert a new legal action under the TCPA because amended petitions only assert new legal actions if they assert “new claims based upon new factual allegations.” 617 S.W.3d 30 , 42 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2020) (citations omitted). This holding conflicts with our decision in Montelongo that either new claims or new factual allegations will assert a new legal action to which a new sixty

day deadline applies. 622 S.W.3d at 293. We believe the court of appeals should have the opportunity to reconsider this case in light of our holdings in Montelongo and Kinder Morgan

. Therefore, without hearing oral argument, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 59.1, we grant the petition for rev iew,
vacate the judgment below , and remand the case for the court of appeals to reconsider its holding in light of Montelongo and Kinder Morgan and to reach the remaining issues as necessary to dispose of this interlocutory appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 60.2(f ).

OPINION DELIVERED: November 19, 2021
----

|   | 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      as of the dates and for the periods covered by the  report. |

|   | /s/  Robert J. Halloran,      Jr.          |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert      J. Halloran, Jr.                         |   |
|   | President,      Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer |
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 11432 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

GERARDO PEREZ TRUJILLO, also known as Gerardo Perez

- Trujillo, also known as Gerardo Trujillo Perez, also known as Gerardo Rujillo Perez, also known as Perez Gerardo ,
Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:18

- CR

- 246

- 1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gerardo Perez Trujillo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Perez Trujillo h a s not filed a response. We have

* 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 June 19, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-11432 Document: 00515002022 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2019No. 18

- 11432

2 reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from furth er responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-11432 Document: 00515002022 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2019