alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff, v. Edward COLE, Defendant.

No. 82CA0106.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

June 24, 1982.

*688KELLY, Judge.

This is a non-adversary review under C.A.R. 4(d)(3) and (4) pursuant to § 18-1-409.5, C.R.S.1973 (1980 Cum.Supp.) which was remanded to the trial court for supplementation of the record. *People v. Cole,*(Colo.App. No. 82CA0106, May 6,1982) (not selected for official publication). The trial court was directed to make specific findings concerning the nature of the defendant’s prior felonies and the circumstances of the current offense, and to supplement the record with the materials supporting such findings.

The record recertified to this court by the trial court indicates that the sentence was imposed pursuant to a stipulation. Although the defendant may not complain of the severity of a sentence to which he has agreed, the non-adversary review statute requires this court to determine whether the record supports imposition of a sentence beyond the presumptive range whether or not it is stipulated. *See*§ 18-1-409.5(1), C.R.S.1973 (1980 Cum. Supp.). Our remand for supplementation of the record was framed with this requirement in mind.

The trial court provided a transcript of the providency hearing which contained testimony concerning the current offense. However, in its written “Findings of Extraordinary Aggravation,” the trial court did not identify any facts which constituted extraordinary aggravation, nor did it provide any information concerning the existence or nature of the defendant’s prior felonies.

Since the trial court did not comply with our directions on remand, the cause is remanded for sentencing within the presumptive range.

SMITH and KIRSHBAUM, JJ., concur.
#### Petersen Motor Vehicle Operator License Case.

*585Argued March 19, 1962.

Before Rhodes, P. J., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.

*Samuel M.*Lehrer, with him *Charles R.*Weiner, for appellant.

*Elmer T.*Bolla, Deputy Attorney General, with him *David*Stahl, Attorney General, for Commonwealth.

April 12, 1962:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County is affirmed on the opinion of Judge John V. Diggins for the court below, reported at 26 Pa. D. & C. 2d 571.
[No. 35631-3-I.

Division One.

June 17, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Garland Smith, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-1-04655-8, Richard M. Ishikawa, J., entered November 15, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS

I, Richard M. Cohen, Chief Financial Officer of Baseline Oil & Gas Corp.,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


(1) the amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2006 (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and


(2) information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Baseline
Oil & Gas Corp.


Dated: October 6, 2006



                                           /s/ Richard M. Cohen
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Richard M. Cohen
                                           Chief Financial 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.


                                       19
Exhibit 23.2

             Information Regarding Consent of Arthur Andersen LLP

On July 26, 2002, the Board of Directors of Ramtron International Corporation
("Ramtron"), upon the recommendation of its Audit Committee, made a
determination not to engage Arthur Andersen LLP as Ramtron's independent
public accountants.  See Ramtron's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on
July 26, 2002 for additional information.  After reasonable efforts, Ramtron
has been unable to obtain Arthur Andersen LLP's written consent to the
incorporation by reference into Ramtron's registration statements
(Nos. 333-12265, 333-33554, 333-60594, 333-66252, 333-19119, 333-47615,
333-87107, 333-95209, 333-42106 and 333-95209)(collectively, the
"Registration Statements") of Arthur Andersen LLP's previously issued audit
report with respect to Ramtron's consolidated financial statements as of
December 31, 2001 and for each of the years in the two year period then
ended.  Ramtron's inability to obtain a currently dated consent from Arthur
Andersen LLP could limit the ability of investors to recover against Arthur
Andersen LLP under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 for any untrue
statement of a material fact contained in such financial statements audited
by Arthur Andersen LLP or any omissions to state a material fact required to
be stated therein.

                                    Page-1
<PAGE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our reports included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's
previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-4 (File No. 333-82632), Form
S-3 (File No. 333-30559 and No. 333-57507), and on Form S-8 (File No. 33-42354,
No. 33-63510, No. 33-79654, No. 33-79756, No. 33-79664, No. 333-48357, No.
333-68815, No. 333-81821 and No. 333-94405).



ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
March 20, 2002
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE * In the

COMMISSION OF MARYLAND * Court of Appeals * of Maryland v. * Misc. Docket AG No. 58,
ELIZABETH MARGARET FISCHER * September Term, 2017


### O R D E R The Court having considered the petition for discip linary or remedial action filed in the above entitled matter in accordance with Md. Rule 19-737, the response to the show caus e order filed by Bar Counsel and there being no response filed by the Respondent, it is this 22nd day of March, 2018

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the petition be, and it is hereby granted, and Elizabet h Margaret Fischer is disbarred, effective immediately, from t he practice of law in this State subject to further order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall fo rthwith strike the name of Elizabeth Margaret Fischer from the reg ister of attorneys in this Court and shall certify that fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in the State in accordance with Rule 19-7 61.
/s/ Mary Ellen Barbera Chief Judge
I a m w r iti ng t o r e c o r d a nd m a k e m y d i s p l ea s u r e kno w n a bou t a ll o w i ng t h e A v e n a l P o w e r C e n t e r t o

b e g r a nd f a t h e r e d i n t o t

h e o l d r e gu l a t i o n s a nd no t t h e n e w e r s t r i c t e r r u l es

. A s a l i f e l o n g

r es i d e n t o f A v e n a l I h a v e see n t h e h i gh g r o w t h r a t e o f as t h m a d u r i n g t h e l as t 2 0 y ea r s

. W h i c h i s w hy t h e A v e n a l P o w e r C e n t e r n ee d s t o b e r e gu l a t e d w i t h t h e m o s t u p t o d a t e

r e g u l a t i on t o bo t h e n s u r e sa f e po w e r a nd sa f

e a ir c o mi ng f

r o m t h e p o w e r p l a n t

. P l ease f ee l

f r ee t o c o n t ac t m e f

o r a ny q u es t i o n s.

F r a n c i sc o L op ez

A v e n a l P o w e r C e n t e r

F r a n c i s c o L op ez

t o :

R 9 A i r P e r mit s

04 / 12 / 2011 11 : 30 P M

H i d e D e t a i l s

F r o m: F r a n c i s c o L op ez

T o : R 9 A i r P e r mit s @ E P A

H i s t o r y : T h i s m e s s a g e h a s b e e n f o r w a r d e d

. P a g e 1 o f 1

4 / 14 / 2011
H. Con. Res. 227 Agreed to September 26, 2001

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Concurrent Resolution

Whereas all Americans are united in condemning, in the strongest

possible terms, the terrorists who planned and carried out the

attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, and

in pursuing all those responsible for these attacks and their

sponsors until they are brought to justice and punished;

Whereas the Arab-American, South Asian-American, and American

Muslim communities are a vital part of the Nation;

Whereas on September 12, 2001, in a mass for the Nation and

the victims of the terrorist hijackings and attacks, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the Archbishop of Washington, D.C., reminded

all Americans in prayer that ‘‘we must seek the guilty and not

strike out against the innocent or we become like them who

are without moral guidance or direction’’;

Whereas the heads of State of several Arab and predominantly

Muslim countries have condemned the terrorist attacks on the

United States and the senseless loss of innocent lives; and

Whereas vengeful threats and incidents of violence directed at

law-abiding, patriotic Americans of Arab or South Asian descent,

particularly the Sikh community, and adherents of the Islamic

faith have already occurred: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress—

(1) declares that in the quest to identify, bring to justice,

and punish the perpetrators and sponsors of the terrorist

attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, that

the civil rights and civil liberties of all American, including

Arab-Americans, American Muslims, and Americans from

South Asia, should be protected; and
H. Con. Res. 227—2

(2) condemns any acts of violence or discrimination against

any Americans, including Arab-Americans, American Muslims,

and Americans from South Asia.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 23.1



                         Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-60865) pertaining to the Hawk Corporation 1997 Stock Option Plan, in
the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-68583) pertaining to the Friction
Products Co. Profit Sharing Plan; S.K. Wellman Retirement Savings and Profit
Sharing Plan; Helsel, Inc. Employee's Retirement Plan; Helsel, Inc. Employee's
Savings and Investment Plan; Sinterloy Corporation 401(k) Plan; Hawk Motors,
Inc. Employees' 401(k) Plan; Hawk Corporation 401(k) Savings and Retirement
Plan; and Quarter Master Industries, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan and Trust and in
the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-47220) pertaining to the Hawk
Corporation 2000 Long Term Incentive Plan of our report dated February 7, 2003,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Hawk Corporation and
subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2002.

                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Cleveland, Ohio
February 21, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 208 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 208

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, August 
2, 2001, or Friday, August 3, 2001, on a motion offered pursuant to 
this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it 
stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, September 5, 2001, or until 
noon on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble 
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs 
first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close of 
business on any day from Thursday, August 2, 2001 through Saturday, 
August 4, 2001, or from Monday, August 6, 2001, through Saturday, 
August 11, 2001, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent 
resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or 
adjourned until noon on Tuesday, September 4, 2001, or until such time 
on that day as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee 
in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day 
after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble 
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives August 2, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 208

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives 
         and a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.
```
[No. 17026.

Department One.

October 20, 1922.]

#### Anna K. Ingamson, *Appellant,*v. O. Ingamson, *Respondent.**1*

Divorce (80)—Division oe Property—Award. A division of the property on granting a divorce approved, where the parties were allowed to keep their separate property, and the husband was awarded the community property, on paying to the wife one-half its cost and attorneys' fees and costs of the action.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Honorable Fred W. Catlett, judge *pro tempore,*entered June 16, 1921, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for divorce, tried to the court.

Affirmed.

*Eugene A. Childe,*for appellant.

*Robert F. Sandall*and *Lundin & Barto,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 209 Pac. 1119.

Per Curiam.

plaintiff and the defendant intermarried at Seattle, on January 28, 1919. In March, 1921, the plaintiff instituted this action for a divorce and for a division of property. The trial court, after a somewhat extended hearing, divorced the parties and made a property division. The plaintiff, feeling aggrieved at the property award, appeals therefrom.

Counsel, in their briefs and arguments, have gone somewhat extensively into the married life of the parties, possibly for the purpose of showing which of them is the more blamable for its unhappy ending, and for the purpose of showing which of them is entitled to the greater consideration. But the tale as it is unfolded is not an inspiring one, and we think no useful purpose would be subserved by repeating *685it here. As we view the record the award was not unfair. The court allowed the parties to keep their separate property, awarded to the defendant the property acquired during the marriage relation and required him to pay to the plaintiff one-half of its cost; also requiring him to pay the costs of the action and the plaintiff’s attorney fees. Any further award to the plaintiff must come from the defendant’s separate property, and we are not persuaded that the justice of the case requires him to make a contribution therefrom to the plaintiff.

The judgment will stand affirmed.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


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





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the three months period
      ended March 31, 2007 of the Claymore MACROshares Oil Up Tradeable Trust (the
      " **Registrant** "),
      as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      " **Quarterly**  **Report** "),
      I,
      Steven M. Hill, principal financial officer of MACRO Securities Depositor,
      LLC,
      which acts as the depositor for the Registrant (the " **Depositor** "),
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
            The
                Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                13(a) or
                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and





2.
            The
                information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly represents,
                in all
                material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
                of the
                Registrant.











Date:
      May
      17, 2007





/s/
      Steven M. Hill


Steven
      M.
      Hill


On
      behalf
      of the Registrant


and
      as
      Chief Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

          - 29 CFR Part 1630

      ( print page 20295)    

### CFR Correction

In Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 900 to 1899, revised as of July 1, 2011, on page 365, in § 1630.2, in paragraph (o)(1)(ii), remove the words “a qualified individual with a disability” and add, in their place, “an individual with a disability who is qualified”.

[FR Doc. 2012-8181 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
RESOLUTION NO. 15-16 

which 

WHEREAS, The City of Alliance owns and operates the Alliance Municipal Airport 

provides commercial air service; and 

provide 

WHEREAS, 

Essential 

The Department of Transportation has solicited proposals from carriers to 

Air Service to Alliance, Nebraska; and 

2015;and 

WHEREAS, Our current carrier's contract to provide Essential Air Service ends May 31, 

"Fly Alliance" 

WHEREAS, 

marketing 

Four carriers submitted proposals which were evaluated and rated by our 

and development groups, two council members and three frequent 

flyer patrons; and 

recommending 

WHEREAS, Based on the evaluations and interviews with the four carriers the group is 

Transportation 

the selection of Boutique Air, contingent upon receiving approval with the 

Security Administration 

Transportation 

for sterile operations, to the Department of 

to provide Essential Air Service for Alliance. 

Alliance, 

NOW, 

Nebraska, 

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the City of 

Transp01iation 

that Boutique Air, contingent upon receiving approval with the 

Security Administration for sterile operations, be recommended 

Depatiment 

to the 

ofTranspotiation to provide Essential Air Service to the Alliance Municipal Airport. 

PASSED AND APPROVED this 3'd day ofMarch, 2015. 

j?d'~ Yeager, Mayor 

(SEAt) 

Attest:
EXHIBIT 10.27

         ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY WITH SILVER FAITH
                     DEVELOPMENT LIMITED DATED MAY 16, 1996


                      [SILVER FAITH DEVELOPMENT LETTERHEAD]



                                  May 16, 1996







Mr. John D. Desbrow
Secretary
NONA MORELLI'S II INC.
2 Park Plaza, Suite 470
Irvine, California  92714

         RE:      Ratification, Assumption and Release Agreement

Dear Mr. Desbrow:

Silver Faith  Development  Limited  ("SFD") wishes to confirm its agreement with
and  acknowledgment  of  the  transfer  of  that  certain  Convertible  Security
Promissory Note in the principal  amount of  US$21,000,000  executed in favor of
SFD (the "Note") pursuant to the Purchase  Agreement  between Nona and SFD dated
September  28,  1995 (the  "Purchase  Agreement")  from Nona  Morelli's  II Inc.
("Nona"),  as "Maker", to NuOasis  International  Ltd., a corporation  organized
under the laws of the Bahamas ("NuOasis").

The  undersigned  further  acknowledges  receipt  of  US$9,600,000  as a payment
against  the  Note,  reducing  the  principal  amount  due  under  the  Note  to
US$11,400,000.

The undersigned also acknowledges notice of the assignment of the Note from Nona
to NuOasis,  effective December 29, 1995, and consents to such assignment.  And,
in connection with such  assignment,  the undersigned  hereby releases Nona from
all  liability  on its part under the Note and agrees to look solely to NuOasis,
and the underlying Peony Garden property which secures such Note, for payment.

If any  provisions of the Purchase  Agreement or this  Agreement are in conflict
with any statute,  rule or law,  then such  provisions  shall be deemed null and
void  to the  extent  of such  conflict,  but  without  invalidating  any  other
provisions of this Agreement, or the Purchase Agreement.

Sincerely,



/s/  Silver Faith Development Limited
  ------------------------------------------
     SILVER FAITH DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

                                                         [SFD\CORR:NMRATREL.LTR]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7688

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee,

v. STANLEY O’NEAL GILL, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:04-cr-00020-F-1; 5:07-cv-00044-F)

Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 22, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley O’Neal Gill, Appellant Pro Se. Winnie Jordan Reaves, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Stanley O’Neal Gill seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion and denying his motion to alter or amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El

v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gill’s motion for 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED