alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SCPR-22-0000657

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

IN RE MAURICE ROSE McCLURE, Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN IN GOOD STANDING

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the petition to resign from the 

practice law in the State of Hawai#i, filed by attorney 

Maurice Rose McClure, pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the Rules of the

Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), but to retain the

paper license as a memento, as authorized by RSCH Rule 1.10(b),

and the affidavits submitted in support thereof, we conclude that

Petitioner McClure has fully complied with the requirements of 

RSCH Rule 1.10. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition to resign is

granted. Petitioner McClure may retain the paper license as a

memento. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(g),

that the Petitioner shall comply with the notice, affidavit, and

record requirements of RSCH Rules 2.16(a), (b), (d), and (g).

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPR-22-0000657

28-NOV-2022

02:37 PM

Dkt. 6 OGP
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the

name of Petitioner McClure, attorney number 4733, from the roll

of attorneys of the State of Hawai#i, effective with the filing

of this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 28, 2022.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7053

WALLACE MITCHELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

Y. ELSWICK; E. C. MORRIS; MORTON GILBERT, SR.;

KEVIN ROBINSON, Officer, Red Onion State

Prison; K. BARNES; DWAYNE HOPKINS; CALVIN B.

WILLIAMS; LIEUTENANT BENNETT; CAPTAIN PEREZ;

ROBERT FULTON; JAMES MURPHY; EDMUND P. WALSH;

GLORIA J. NELSON; CHARLES FRANCIS, St./Red

Onion State Prison; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS; LYNN REYNOLDS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CA-99-46-7)

Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 21, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wallace Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Wallace Mitchell appeals the district court’s orders denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint and

denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum opinion and orders and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of

the district court. Mitchell v. Elswick, No. CA-99-46-7 (W.D. Va.

May 21 & July 19, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
THOMAS F. ROSENBLUM, 

FORMER HUSBAND,

Appellant,

v.

ANNE R. ROSENBLUM, N/K/A 

ANNE R. MOORE, FORMER 

WIFE,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-3203

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 3, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

W. Gregg McCaulie, Judge.

Thomas F. Rosenblum, Former Husband, pro se, Appellant.

Geraldine C. Hartin, Orange Park, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. Helmich v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 136 So. 3d 763, 764 

(Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

ROWE, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 11.1

Statement re Computation of net loss per share and unaudited pro forma net loss
per share


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Year ended
                                                          December 31,

                                                1996         1997         1998
                                                ----         ----         ----
                                            (in thousands, except per share data)
<S>                                          <C>          <C>          <C>      
Basic and diluted net loss per share:

Net loss                                     $  (1,698)   $  (7,425)   $(10,770)
                                             =========    =========    ========


Basic and diluted weighted average
  common shares outstanding                      1,743        1,687       2,938
                                             =========    =========    ========


Basic and diluted net loss per share         $   (0.97)   $   (4.40)   $  (3.67)
                                             =========    =========    ========
</TABLE>


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                   Year ended
                                                                                  December 31,
                                                                               1997         1998
                                                                               ----         ----
                                                                    (in thousands, except per share data)
<S>                                                                          <C>         <C>      
Unaudited pro forma basic and diluted net loss per share:

Net loss                                                                     $ (7,425)   $(10,770)
                                                                             ========    ========


Unaudited pro forma basic and diluted weighted average shares outstanding:

      Shares attributable to common stock (1)                                   2,515       3,321

      Shares attributable to the assumed
         conversion of Preferred Stock upon
         closing of an initial public offering                                  2,863       3,818
                                                                             --------    --------

Unaudited pro forma basic and diluted
   weighted average shares                                                      5,378       7,139
                                                                             ========    ========


Unaudited pro forma basic and diluted
   net loss per share                                                        $  (1.38)   $  (1.51)
                                                                             ========    ========
</TABLE>


(1) Includes outstanding common stock subject to repurchase under a stock
restriction agreement which lapsed upon the consummation of the initial public
offering in January 1999.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 820/2006

of 1 June 2006         

fixing the export refunds on white sugar and raw sugar exported in its unaltered state

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 27(5) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The export refunds on the products listed in Article 1(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, undenatured and exported in the natural state, are hereby fixed to the amounts shown in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 2 June 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 1 June 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 16).

(2)OJ L 214, 8.9.1995, p. 16.

----

ANNEX

REFUNDS ON WHITE SUGAR AND RAW SUGAR EXPORTED WITHOUT FURTHER PROCESSING APPLICABLE FROM 2 JUNE 2006 (1)

----

(1)  The amounts set out in this Annex are not applicable with effect from 1 February 2005 pursuant to Council Decision 2005/45/EC of 22 December 2004 concerning the conclusion and the provisional application of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation amending the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation of 22 July 1972 as regards the provisions applicable to processed agricultural products (OJ L 23, 26.1.2005, p. 17).

(1)  This amount is applicable to raw sugar with a yield of 92 %. Where the yield for exported raw sugar differs from 92 %, the refund amount applicable shall be calculated in accordance with Article 28(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001.

----
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

 10:00 a.m., Friday, February 27, 2015.

# PLACE:

 Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# STATUS:

 Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

                         Surveillance, enforcement, and examinations matters. In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at                         *http://www.cftc.gov.*

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202-418-5964.

Natise Allen,

Executive Assistant.

[FR Doc. 2015-03601 Filed 2-18-15; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1311 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1311

To amend the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 and the 
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to modify certain penalties to deter 
                              oil spills.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 12, 2015

  Mr. Markey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 and the 
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to modify certain penalties to deter 
                              oil spills.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Oil Spill Deterrent Act''.

SEC. 2. PENALTIES FOR DRILLING ON FEDERAL LAND.

    Section 109 of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 
1982 (30 U.S.C. 1719) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting 
        ``$100,000''; and
            (2) in subsection (g), by inserting, ``, or, after notice 
        and an opportunity for public comment, by regulation increase'' 
        after ``reduce''.

SEC. 3. PENALTIES FOR DRILLING ON OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.

    Section 24(b)(1) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
U.S.C. 1350(b)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence by striking ``$20,000'' and 
        inserting ``$250,000''; and
            (2) by adding ``After notice and an opportunity for public 
        comment, the Secretary may by regulation increase the penalty 
        specified in this paragraph.'' after the period at the end.
                                 <all>
```
No: I-19-024 September 26, 2019

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330

 Neil Sheehan, 610-337-5331

NRC to Hold Public Open House to Discuss

2018 Performance of Nine Mile Point/FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plants

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will discuss the 2018 safety performance of the Nine 

Mile Point and FitzPatrick nuclear power plants, operated by Exelon, during an open house on Oct. 3 in 

Oswego, N.Y.

The open house, to be held at Nine Mile Point, 348 Lake Road in Oswego, will run from 

4-7 p.m. NRC employees responsible for plant inspections, including the resident inspectors based fulltime at the site, will be available to discuss the plants’ performance. 

Nine Mile Point and FitzPatrick operated safely during 2018. At the end of the year, all 

inspection findings and performance indicators were no greater than green, or of very low safety 

significance. As a result, the plant remains under the NRC’s normal level of oversight, which entails 

thousands of hours of inspection each year.

The NRC Reactor Oversight Process uses color-coded inspection findings and indicators to 

measure plant performance. The colors start at green and increase to white, yellow or red, 

commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. Inspection findings or performance 

indicators with more than very low safety significance trigger increased NRC oversight.

Inspections are performed by NRC resident inspectors assigned to each plant and inspection 

specialists from the agency’s Region I Office.

The annual assessment letters for Nine Mile Point and FitzPatrick, as well as the notice for the

open house, are available on the NRC website. Current performance information for Nine Mile Point 

Unit 1, Unit 2 and FitzPatrick is also available.
#### Russell, by guardian *ad litem,*Respondent, vs. Hannemann, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Lockney & Lowry*of Waukesha.

For the respondent: *E. L: von Suessmilch*of Delavan and *Jeffris, Mouat, Oestreich, Wood & Cunningham*of Janesville.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
#### Schaub, Plaintiff in error, vs. The State, Defendant in error.

*March 17*—

April *5, 1911.*

*Perjury: Questions for jury: Instructions.*

Upon the evidence given in a trial for perjury it is *held*that the trial court rightly charged the jury that the alleged false testimony in question was untrue.

ERROR to review a judgment of the circuit court for Eond du Lac county.: W. J. TurNer, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

The plaintiff in error was informed against as having committed the offense of perjury. He was tried on an issue of not guilty, convicted, and sentenced. The judgment was removed to this court for review.

*B. L.*Morse, for the plaintiff in error.

Eor the defendant in error there was a brief by the *Attorney General*and *J. E. Messerschmidt,*assistant attorney general, and oral argument by *Mr. Messerschmidt.*

Marshall, J.

The sole supposed error is that the court, in charging the jury, referring to the alleged false testimony, said it was untrue and that if they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that it was given wilfully and corruptly they should render a verdict of guilty.

No complaint is made but that the court rightly instructed the jury that the alleged false evidence was relevant and material and none but that, if it were false and wilfully so, the accused was guilty. The contention is solely, that the court wrongly instructed the jury that the evidence was false, — ■ that whether it was so or not turned on which of two occasions the accused referred to in what he said; if to the one the court took the evidence as referring to it was untrue; if to the one the accused testified he had in mind it was true; therefore,- — • since it was subject to the double construction there was room *115for reasonable doubt as to whether the alleged offense was committed.

A careful reading of the evidence constrains us to conclude that, the trial judge was right in holding that it was free from ambiguity and referred unmistakably to the occasion which rendered it untrue. Therefore the testimony of the accused that he did not so intend bore only on whether he swore corruptly. So there was no error in the instruction and the judgment must be affirmed.

*By the Court.*— So ox*dered.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1535 

To amend title 49, United States Code, with respect to passenger motor 

vehicle crash avoidance information, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 10, 2015 

Mr. HELLER (for himself and Mr. MARKEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, with respect to 

passenger motor vehicle crash avoidance information, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safety Through In5 formed Consumers Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE INFORMATION. 

7 Section 32302 of title 49, United States Code, is 

8 amended by inserting after subsection (b) the following: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1535 IS

1 ‘‘(c) CRASH AVOIDANCE.—Not later than 1 year after 

2 the date of the enactment of the Safety Through Informed 

3 Consumers Act of 2015, the Secretary shall ensure that 

4 crash avoidance information is provided next to, and in 

5 the same format as, crashworthiness information at each 

6 place that crashworthiness information is made available 

7 to the public under this section.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### State ex rel. Rowe, Respondent, vs. Hine, Village Clerk, and another, Appellants.

*January 30*

March *31, 1908.*

Arreal from a judgment of the circuit court for Eau Claire county: E. W. Helms, Judge.

*Reversed.*

*Horace B. Walmsley,*for the appellants.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Wickham & Harr,*and oral argument by *James Wickham.*

Kerwin, J.

This case is ruled by *State ex rel. Rowe v. Krumenauer, ante,*p. 185, 115 N. W. 798. Therefore the judgment below must be reversed.

*By the Court.*— The judgment is reversed, and the court below directed to dismiss the action.
NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

14675 Lee Road

Chantilly, VA 20151-1715

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Release #08-12

Contact: (703) 808-5050 July 16, 2012

Leadership Transition at the National Reconnaissance Office

At a ceremony presided over by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper 

on 6 July 2012 at the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) Headquarters, Ms. 

Betty J. Sapp became the 18th Director of the National Reconnaissance Office 

(DNRO). She follows Bruce Carlson, who served as DNRO from July 2009 until 

July 2012. Previously Ms. Sapp served as the Principal Deputy Director of the 

NRO (PDDNRO) under Mr. Carlson.

The DNRO provides direction, guidance, and supervision over all matters 

pertaining to the NRO and executes other authorities specifically delegated by 

the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence.

At the same ceremony, Mr. Frank Calvelli was named the new PDDNRO. He 

previously had held a variety of senior positions at the NRO. The PDDNRO 

provides overall day-to-day management of the NRO, with decision responsibility 

as delegated by the DNRO. In the absence of the DNRO, the PDDNRO acts on 

the DNRO’s behalf on all matters. 

The NRO is a joint Department of Defense-Intelligence Community organization 

responsible for developing, launching, and operating America’s signals, imagery,

and communications intelligence satellites to meet the national security needs of 

our nation. 

-NRO-
JOEL KELLEY MIMS, FORMER 

HUSBAND,

Appellant,

v.

ROCHELLE LYNN MIMS, 

FORMER WIFE,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5141

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 12, 2016. 

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

James M. Colaw, Judge.

Marci D. Silver, Gainesville, for Appellant.

Rochelle Lynn Mims, pro se, Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., ROWE and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
Amendment No. 2 to Capital Support Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO 
 CAPITAL SUPPORT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment No. 2 (the “Amendment”) to the Capital Support Agreement, is made as of the 29th day of September 2008, by and between
NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION (the “Support Provider”) and NORTHERN INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS (the “Trust”), on behalf of its series the Prime Obligations Portfolio (the “Fund”). 
 WHEREAS, the parties have entered into a Capital Support Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of February 21, 2008 and amended the
Agreement on July 15, 2008; and 
 WHEREAS, the Support Provider wishes to increase the level of capital support provided to the Fund;
and 
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to further amend the Agreement on the terms and subject to the conditions provided herein; 
 NOW THEREFORE, the parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, capitalized terms shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement. 
 2. Section 1(e) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced as set forth below: 
 (e) “Maximum Contribution Amount” means thirty million dollars ($30,000,000). The Maximum Contribution Amount may be increased
at any time as agreed by the Trust and the Support Provider. 
 3. Section 3(a) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and
replaced as set forth below: 
 (a) If a Contribution Event occurs prior to the occurrence of a Termination Event (defined
below), the Support Provider will make a Capital Contribution to the Fund in the amount equal to the least of (i) the Loss incurred as a result of Contribution Event; or (ii) the Maximum Contribution Amount reduced by the amount of any
Capital Contribution previously made by the Support Provider to the Fund. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties caused this Amendment No. 2 to the Capital Support Agreement to be
executed as of the date specified above. 
  

			
	NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ William R. Dodds, Jr.

	Name:	 	William R. Dodds, Jr.
	Title:	 	Treasurer
	
	ADDRESS FOR NOTICES:
	
	50 S. LaSalle St.
	Chicago, IL 60603
		
	Attn:	 	William R. Dodds, Jr.
	
	NORTHERN INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ITS PRIME OBLIGATIONS PORTFOLIO
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Lloyd A. Wennlund

	Name:	 	Lloyd A. Wennlund
	Title:	 	President
	
	ADDRESS FOR NOTICES:
	
	50 S. LaSalle St.
	Chicago, IL 60603
		
	Attn:	 	Lloyd A. Wennlund


  

 2