alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of : No. 200 DB 2019 (No. 4 RST 2020)

:

JO ASTRID GLADING : Attorney Registration No. 79844

: 

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT :

 FROM RETIRED STATUS : (Montgomery County)

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2020, the Report and Recommendation of 

Disciplinary Board Member dated January 14, 2020, is approved and it is ORDERED that

Jo Astrid Glading, who has been on Retired Status, has never been suspended or 

disbarred, and has demonstrated that she has the moral qualifications, competency and 

learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, 

hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The 

expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of this matter shall 

be paid by the Petitioner.
#### Hartley, *Ex-parte.*

Under our statute, an attorney cannot make affidavit for the purpose of holding a defendant to bail. The affidavit must be made by the plaintiff himself.

This was an application to this Court for a writ of habeas corpus, made by Amos Hartley, who was confined in prison in a civil suit, *33wherein he had been held to bail on the affidavit of plaintiff’s attorney. Several questions were presented, and argued by *Pike*& *Baldwin,*for the petitioner, and *Cummins,*contra; but the only one decided was as to the sufficiency of the affidavit.

*By the Court,*

Lacy, J.

Waiving any decision upon the points whether or not the party should be discharged, on account of the execution being made returnable on a day unauthorized by the statute, or in having filed his petition in the District Court of the United States, for this State, to be declared a bankrupt, under the laws of Congress, we shall proceed to consider and settle the question presented by the sufficiency or insufficiency of the affidavit to justify the imprisonment of the body of the defendant. The statute upon this point is explicit and imperative. It requires the plaintiff in the action to make affidavit that he has reason to believe he is in danger of losing his debt, by the defendant secreting his property, or putting it out of his hands, or withdrawing himself beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Upon the making of this affidavit, the clerk is authorized and' directed to insert a clause in the execution, commanding the body of the defendant to be seized and held in custody, unless sufficient goods, chattels, or real estate, can be found to satisfy the execution. *Rev. St., p.*374, *sec.*3. In the present instance, it was the attorney for the plaintiff in the suit, and not the plaintiff himself, who made the affidavit. This the statute does not authorize; it expressly declares that the plaintiff should make the affidavit; and it nowhere intimates that any other person will be allowed to make it for him. The body cannot be taken in execution, unless the plaintiff believes, for the cause above stated, that he is about to lose his debt. The attorney cannot know what is the belief of the plaintiff in the subject. Each individual’s belief is a matter depending upon evidence superin-ducing that belief, and confined to his own heart, that no one but himself can know or verify. The debtor cannot be deprived of his personal liberty without the belief of the creditor, supported by his own oath, and not that of his attorney. Consequently, there was no authority to issue the execution to take the body of the defendant, *34and therefore his imprisonment was unlawful, and he must be discharged from custody.-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
GAIL L. ALLEN,
Plaintiff, Case No, 2:17-cv-1154
v. JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

ORDER

On November 20, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in
which she recommended reversing the Commissioner and remanding this case. (ECF No. 17.)
The time for objecting has passed and no objection was filed. For the reasons stated in the
Report and Recommendation, this Court REVERSES the Commissioner of Social Security’s
non-disability finding and REMANDS this case to the Commissioner and the ALJ under
Sentence Four of § 405(g) for further consideration consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation, which this Court hereby ADOPTS.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

[X-\7-2018
DATE EDMUNG A ARGUS, JR.
CHIEF ‘D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
# U.S. 5th Fleet Responds to COVID-19 Aboard USS San Diego and USS Philippine Sea

### 26 Feb 2021

As of today, approximately a dozen service members aboard the amphibious transport dock USS San Diego (LPD 22) tested positive for COVID-19, and the guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea (CG 58) has identified several persons under investigation (PUIs).More DetailsMore DetailsMedical health professionals are conducting a thorough contact investigation to determine the source of COVID-19 aboard the ships and whether any other personnel may have been exposed.San Diego is currently pierside in the Kingdom of Bahrain. All positive cases have been isolated on board, and the ship remains in a restricted COVID bubble. The port visit and medical support have been coordinated with the host nation government and Bahrain Ministry of Health. The ship has a robust medical capability, including embarked medical staff, operating rooms, a 24-bed hospital ward and additional overflow capacity.Philippine Sea, currently underway, is expected to pull into port to conduct further testing of all who have possibly been exposed and provide rapid testing capability and medical treatment centers, as needed. The port location will not be disclosed, in advance, due to operational security.Personnel identified as having close contact have been isolated and mitigation measures are followed in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Bahrain Ministry of Health, and Navy-specific guidelines to minimize the spread of COVID-19 and protect the health of the crews.U.S. 5th Fleet is committed to taking every measure possible to protect the health of our force. While the health and well-being of our personnel are a priority, we remain ready to support the U.S. Central Command mission and our regional and coalition partners.
Antonio L. JAMES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4825

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 02, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Belated appeal is dismissed.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

New Plan Realty Trust, a Massachusetts business trust
New Plan Securities Corp., a New York corporation
New Plan Realty of Alabama, Inc., an Alabama corporation
Avion Service Corp., a Pennsylvania corporation
New Plan Realty of Kingsport, Inc., a Tennessee corporation
New Plan Factory Malls, Inc., a Delaware corporation
New Plan of Tara, Inc., a Delaware corporation
New Plan of Fashion Corners, Inc., a Delaware corporation
New Plan Disbursing Corp., a Delaware corporation
New Plan Realty of Louisiana, Inc., a Delaware corporation
New Plan of Tennessee, Inc., a Delaware corporation
New Plan Realty of Louisiana, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
New Plan of Waterford Place, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
New Plan of Tennessee, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
New Plan of New Garden, Inc., a Delaware corporation
New Plan of New Jersey, Inc., a Delaware corporation
New Plan of Tinton Falls, Inc., a Delaware corporation
New Plan of Eastgreen, Inc., a Delaware corporation
New Plan of Northgate, Inc., a Delaware corporation
New Plan of Polo Run, Inc., a Delaware corporation
NC Properties #1, Inc., a Delaware corporation
NC Properties #2, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Excel Realty Trust -- NC, a North Carolina partnership
TX Properties #1, Inc., a Delaware corporation
TX Properties #2, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Excel Realty Trust -- TX, L.P., a Texas limited partnership
Excel Realty -- PA, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Excel Realty -- NE, Inc., a Nebraska corporation
Excel Realty -- ST, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Excel Westminster Marketplace, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Excel Realty Partners, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
E.H. Properties, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
New Plan DRP Trust, a Maryland business trust
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements of Nabors Industries, Inc. on Form S-8 (Registration Numbers
333-11313, 33-87322, 33-87324, 33-47521, 33-45097, 33-36229, 33-56000 and
33-54858) and on Form S-3 (Registration Numbers 333-20501 and 333-25233) of our
report dated November 12, 1997 on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements of Nabors Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of September 30, 1997
and 1996, and for each of the three years in the period ended September 30,
1997, which reports are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

                                           COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.


Houston, Texas
December 29, 1997
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. ANTHONY MORGAN, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 291 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 25th day of November, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
Nikolaos KOUTSOURADIS, Appellant, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc., Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-3607

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(In re: Montgomery County Department of Human Resources v. In the matter of D.F., Jr., a minor child)

2160401

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Marvin WILLIAMS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2365

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 29, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed for appellant's failure to comply with this court's December 4, 2017, order.

MORRIS, CRENSHAW, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
               
<ARTICLE>               5
                                
<S>                                        <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                   1,404,767
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                            1,019,545
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         2,875,819
<PP&E>                                  47,769,000
<DEPRECIATION>                          16,269,959
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          34,649,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    2,273,925
<BONDS>                                  5,280,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                    45,174
<OTHER-SE>                              15,460,621
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            34,649,732
<SALES>                                  2,324,919
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         2,420,907
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              913,133
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            23,559
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,587
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            118,237
<INCOME-TAX>                                28,614
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         89,623
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                89,623
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .02
        
                            

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A)
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B)
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       8,494,114
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,703,720
<ALLOWANCES>                                   114,105
<INVENTORY>                                  4,205,573
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,624,357
<PP&E>                                       4,066,413
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,285,601
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,086,463
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,043,842
<BONDS>                                        933,333
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        3,971,019
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,060
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,326,867
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,086,463
<SALES>                                      4,608,585
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,642,399
<CGS>                                        3,480,977
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,940,790
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              45,532
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,343,923)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,248,122)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,248,122)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.49)


</TABLE>
Dionisio Jackson REED v. STATE

CR-15-1185

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# TIME AND DATE: 

Friday, January 21, 2022, 12:00 p.m. EST.

# PLACE: 

Meeting to take place by telephone and is open to the public by telephone: 800-259-2693, Conference ID #: 3653553.

# STATUS: 

Open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Commission business for the month of January.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

                        Angelia Rorison: 202-376-7700;                         *publicaffairs@usccr.gov*.                    

 Dated: January 19, 2022.

Angelia Rorison,

USCCR Media and Communications Director.

[FR Doc. 2022-01277 Filed 1-19-22; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
Ace WEINTRAUB, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2231

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 5, 2018

David Jay Bernstein, Deerfield, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Warner, Gross and Levine, JJ., concur.
**Custom er Se**  **rvice Hotline: 1 -**  **800 -**  **438 -**  **2474 UNITED STA** 

**TES ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION A**  **GENCY**

**REGION III 1650 A**  **rch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103**  **- 2029**  January 28, 2013 The Honorable Randy

C. Huffman Cabinet Secretary , West Virginia Department of Environment al Pr otection 6 0 1 57 th Street SE Charleston , West Virginia 2 5304 Dear Secretary Huffman : On December 1 3, 2012 , th e U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E PA) received a revision to the West Virginia S tate Impl ementation P lan (SI P)

. The SI P revision was s ubmitted to address required infrastructure elements of S ection 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) which are necessary

to implement, maintain, and enforce the 20 10 1
- hour nitrogen dioxide N ational A mbient A ir Q uality S tandards (NAAQS) in West Virginia

. EPA has determined that the submittal is complete for these elements. If members of your staff have any questions, they

may direct them to Ms. Jacqueline Lewis , Office of Air Program Planning , at (215) 814

- 2 037
. Sincerely , /s/ Diana Esher , Director A ir Protection Division

cc: John A. Benedict, Director, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
Kenneth Eugene NIX, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2983

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 29, 2018]

Kenneth Eugene Nix, Madison, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J. Concepcion, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J., Taylor and May, JJ., concur.
#### Donald C. KING *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 73-136

504 S.W. 2d 365

Opinion delivered January 28, 1974

*Harold L. Hall,*for appellant.

*Jim Guy Tucker,*Atty. Gen., by: *James W. Atkins,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Appellant Donald C. King seeks to set aside his manslaughter conviction on the basis of evidence discovered after the verdict. We find no merit in the contention.

The record shows two altercations between appellant and the decedent, his brother, on the date of the killing. The first altercation occurred while their mother and another brother were present. After that altercation was *951broken up and the decedent had started to watch television the brother and the mother departed. Thereafter appellant shot decedent at close range with a shotgun. To bolster his contention that he shot his brother because he was advancing toward him with a steak knife, appellant sought to show that decedent had a knife during the first altercation. Neither his brother nor his mother supported him on that issue during the trial. However, after the jury had retired, but before the verdict, the mother recanted and wanted to state that decedent did have a knife during the first altercation. The trial court refused to grant a mistrial before the jury returned or a new trial thereafter.

We find no abuse of discretion. See *Cooper*v. *State,*246 Ark. 368, 438 S.W. 2d 681 (1969).

Affirmed.

Harris, C.J., not participating.
Charles MOORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2820

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Walter P. JENKINS, Appellant, v. John POWER, as Tax Collector for Alachua County, Appellee.

No. 1D17-515

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
James Tyronne INGRAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3690

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 22, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  378,097
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,613
<INVENTORY>                                    311,371
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               676,255
<PP&E>                                         847,851
<DEPRECIATION>                                (685,947)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 854,997
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,244,882
<BONDS>                                         15,069
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,966,969
<COMMON>                                        34,221
<OTHER-SE>                                  (4,406,144)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   854,997
<SALES>                                        713,443
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               894,751
<CGS>                                          639,131
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,214,633
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,793
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,394
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (347,483)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (347,483)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (347,483)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>