alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Winkfield, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2014-Ohio-2491.] 

COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. WINKFIELD. 

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Winkfield, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 

2014-Ohio-2491.] 

(No. 2000-1138—Submitted May 28, 2014—Decided June 12, 2014.) 

ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT. 

____________________ 

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an 

application for reinstatement by respondent, Lawrence Edward Winkfield, 

Attorney Registration No. 0034254, last known business address in Westerville, 

Ohio. 

{¶ 2} The court, coming now to consider its order of April 11, 2001, 

wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a 

period of two years with the final year stayed on conditions, finds that respondent 

has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. 

V(10)(A). 

{¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to 

the practice of law in the state of Ohio on the conditions that respondent (1) serve 

a three-year monitored probation, with a monitor assigned by relator, and that 

such monitor’s principal office be located within the Columbus, Ohio, 

metropolitan area, (2) fulfill all recommendations of mental-health practitioners, 

including ongoing and routine psychotherapy counsel and treatment as 

recommended by Dr. Jerry M. Zober or another licensed psychiatrist, and (3) 

refrain from any illegal conduct. 

{¶ 4} It is further ordered that on or before 30 days from the date of this 

order, relator shall file with the clerk of this court the name of the attorney who 

will serve as respondent’s monitor, in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9). It is 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

further ordered that at the end of respondent’s probationary period, relator shall 

file with the clerk of this court a report indicating whether respondent, during the 

probationary period, complied with the terms of the probation. 

{¶ 5} It is further ordered that at the end of the probationary period, 

respondent may apply for termination of probation as provided in Gov.Bar R. 

V(9). It is further ordered that respondent’s probation shall not be terminated 

until (1) respondent files an application for termination of probation in 

compliance with Gov.Bar R. V(9)(D), (2) respondent complies with this and all 

other orders issued by this court, (3) respondent complies with the Rules for the 

Government of the Bar of Ohio, (4) relator files with the clerk of this court a 

report indicating that respondent has complied with the terms of the probation, 

and (5) this court orders that the probation be terminated. 

{¶ 6} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies 

of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be made 

as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of 

publication. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

________________________
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6672

VINCENT EUGENE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

LORETTA K. KELLY, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (3:06-cv-00560-RLW)

Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: September 6, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent Eugene Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Karri B. Atwood, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Eugene Williams seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as

successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). 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 Williams has

not made the requisite showing. 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 the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Doc #: VENTUS Service s Form VS F

- 010 Rev 3 Date: Feb. . 2 011 Issued: Ventus Wi nd Services Group LLC

VENTUS Site Permission Form VSI

- 010 Page 1 

# VENTUS

Wind Services Group



### VENTUS SITE PERMISSION FORM VSF

- 010

This Site Permission Form (“Agreement”) is granted and is in effect the ____ day of __________, 2015 (“Effective Date”), by and between VENTUS Wind Services LLC

. , a Texas company
, having an office at 7202 Greystone La ne Lan e, Frisco, Texas 75034 (“ VENTUS ”) and

____________________________ , a

___________________________ corporation
, having an office at

____________________________ _ ( the “C ompany ”).

This Agreement allows Vent us Wind Services all necessary access to the described property below for the operation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, (UAV’s) for the purpose of performing inspections. All UAV operations will be performed under the operating guidelines found in Ventus Win d’s Operations Manual VSI

- 005 Rev. 2 and per the FAA Section 333 Guidelines defined in the Certificate of Operation (TBD).

1

. CUSTOMER CONTACT INFORMATION:

Customer Name:

____________________________ Emergency Telephone:

_ ___________________________ Site Name:

____________________________ Site Manager:

____________________________ Telephone:

____________________________ Email:

____________________________

2

. SITE ADDRESS:

Site Address:

____________________________ State:

____ Zip:

_____________

3

. LANDOWNER INFORMATION:

Name:

____________________________ Telephone:

________________________ ____ Email:

____________________________

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties hereto have agreed to this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

VENTUS NORTH AMERICA INC. COMPANY :

________________________ ___

By:

____________________________

Name:

____________________________

[print name]

Title:

____________________________

Date:

____________________________ By:

_____ _______________________

Name:

____________________________

[print name]

Title:

____________________________

Date:

____________________________
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 Quarterly Report of DDi Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mikel H. Williams, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/    MIKEL H. WILLIAMSMikel H. Williams President and Chief Executive Officer


Date: August 8, 2007
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1

                                  POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes
and appoints Asuka Nakahara and William P. Leiser the true and lawful
attorney-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him
and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his behalf, as a director or
officer, or both, as the case may be, of Trammell Crow Company, a Delaware
corporation (the "Corporation"), the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1997, and to sign any or all amendments to
such Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, granting unto said attorney or attorneys-in-fact, each of them
with or without the others, full power and authority to do and perform each
and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney or
attorneys-in-fact or any of them or their substitute or substitutes may
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

                                   /s/ J. MCDONALD WILLIAMS
                                   ----------------------------------
                                   J. McDonald Williams


Dated:    March 31, 1998
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0156

CITY OF GREAT FALLS,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

HANNAH ROSE KUNTZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 6, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 28 2022

07/28/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0156
<PAGE>

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


       KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes
and appoints George L. Lippe, Robert E. Sulentic, Derek R. McClain and William
P. Leiser the true and lawful attorney-in-fact, with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, to
sign on his behalf, as a director or officer, or both, as the case may be, of
Trammell Crow Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), the
Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999,
and to sign any or all amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same,
with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorney or
attorney-in-fact, each of them with or without the others, full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and
necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and
purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming
all that said attorney or attorneys-in-fact or any of them or their substitute
or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.



                                        /s/ William P. Leiser
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       William P. Leiser
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7450** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. QUAISHIC LAMONT CAPERS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston
. C. Weston Houck , Senior District Judge. ( 2:11

- cr - 00601

- CWH

- 1; 2:12

- c v - 02506

- CWH )

Submitted : November 21 , 2013 Decided: November 26, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Quaishic Lamont Capers, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew J. Modica, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Quaish ic Lamont Capers seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) 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) (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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demon strating that reasonable 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). We have independent ly reviewed the record and conclude that Capers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presente d in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1

The following certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be
deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language in any filings.

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 of Advanced Analogic Technologies Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, for the
first quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, each of the undersigned officers of Advanced Analogic Technologies Incorporated certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his respective knowledge:

(1) the accompanying
report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the first quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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 Advanced Analogic Technologies Incorporated for the periods presented therein.

Date: May 3, 2011



/s/ Richard K. WilliamsRichard K. WilliamsChief Executive Officer


Date: May 3, 2011



/s/ Ashok ChandranAshok ChandranInterim Chief Financial Officer


A
signed original of the above certification has been provided to Advanced Analogic Technologies Incorporated and will be retained by Advanced Analogic Technologies Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

Part N, National Institutes of Health (NIH), of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority for the Department of Health and Human Services (40 FR 22859, May 27, 1975, as amended most recently at 77 FR 1941, January 12, 2012, and redesignated from Part HN as Part N at 60 FR 56605, November 9, 1995), is amended as set forth below to rename the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM).

Section N-D, Organization and Functions, under the heading National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), is renamed to the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH).

*Delegations of Authority Statement:*                     All delegations and redelegations of authority to officers and employees of NIH that were in effect immediately prior to the effective date of this reorganization and are consistent with this reorganization shall continue in effect, pending further redelegation.                

Dated: March 20, 2015.

Francis S. Collins,

Director, NIH.

[FR Doc. 2015-07064 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JACK LOUMENA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

PAMELA KENNEDY; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-17110

D.C. No. 5:15-cv-00951-LHK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2016** 

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Jack Loumena appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with

his parents’ state court divorce proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel

FILED

NOV 23 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We may affirm on any basis

supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.

2008). We affirm. 

Dismissal of Loumena’s action was proper because Loumena failed to allege

facts sufficient to show that any defendant was acting under the color of state law. 

See Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991) (private parties do not

generally act under color of state law for § 1983 purposes). 

AFFIRMED.

2 15-17110
# C_2015102EN.01000101.xml

| 27.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7557 — Apax Partners/Azelis)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 102/01)

On 23 March 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7557. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7557. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 10.40


 


	
    Below is the Spousal Consent, dated
    December 2017, issued by Shiyuan Li, the spouse of Shufen Xiao. Certain identified information has been excluded from this exhibit because
    it is both immaterial and is the type that the registrant treats as private and confidential.



 


Spousal Consent


 


I, Shiyuan Li ( 李
世 元 ), a People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) citizen with PRC ID Card No.:
[XXXXXXXXXXX], am the lawful spouse of Shufen Xiao ( 肖 淑
芬 ), a PRC citizen with PRC ID Card No.: [XXXXXXXXXXX]. I hereby unconditionally and irrevocably agree to the
execution of the following documents by Shufen Xiao ( 肖 淑
芬 ) on ____ December 2017, and the disposal of the equity interests of Jihuiduo (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd. (积惠多(北京)科技有限公司),
“VIE Company”) held by Shufen Xiao and registered in her name according to the following documents (collectively,
“Transaction Documents”):


 


		(a)	the Call Option Agreement entered into among Zhifu Trading (Shanghai)
Co., Ltd. (志福商贸(上海)有限公司,
“WFOE”), Shufen Xiao (肖淑芬), Xiaoli
Lou (娄晓丽) and VIE Company;





 


		(b)	the Loan Agreement entered into among the WFOE, Shufen Xiao (
肖 淑 芬 ), Xiaoli Lou (娄晓丽)
and VIE Company;





 


		(c)	the Equity Pledge Agreement entered into between the WFOE and
Shufen Xiao (肖淑芬); and





 


		(d)	the Power of Attorney executed by Shufen Xiao (肖淑芬).





 


I shall not make any assertions in connection
with the equity interests of VIE Company held by Shufen Xiao (肖淑芬).
I confirm that Shufen Xiao (肖淑芬) may perform the
Transaction Documents and further amend or terminate the Transaction Documents without my authorisation or consent.


 


I shall execute all documents and take
all actions necessary or desirable to ensure appropriate performance of the Transaction Documents (as amended from time to time) upon
the WFOE’s request.


 


If I obtain any equity interests of VIE Company
that are currently held by Shufen Xiao (肖淑芬) for
any reason, I shall be bound by the Transaction Documents as well as the Exclusive Services Agreement entered into between the WFOE and
VIE Company dated ____ December 2017 (as amended from time to time), and the Intellectual Property Licence Agreement entered into between
the WFOE and VIE Company dated ____ December 2017 (as amended from time to time), and shall comply with the obligations thereunder. For this
purpose, upon the WFOE’s request, I shall sign one or more written documents of substantially the same form and content as the
Transaction Documents, as well as the Exclusive Services Agreement and the Intellectual Property Licence Agreement (as amended from time
to time).


 






    


     


    

 








	 	Name:	Shiyuan
    Li (李世元)
	 	Signature: 	/s/
    Shiyuan Li
	 	Date:	 


 


Signature Page