alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION

FOR REINSTATEMENT OF JOHN

ANTHONY MOODY TO THE BAR

OF MARYLAND *

*

*

*

*

* IN THE

SUPREME COURT

OF MARYLAND

AG No. 45

September Term, 202 3

ORDER

Upon consideration of attorney John Anthony Moody’s p etition for r einstatement

to the Bar of Maryland and Bar Counsel ’s consent to that relief

, it is this 22nd day of April

2024

, by the Supreme Court of Maryland

,

ORDERED that the p etition is granted ; and it is further

ORDERED that John Anthony Moody is reinstated as a member of the Bar of

Maryland; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall replace the name John Anthony Moody

upon the register of attorneys entitled to prac tice law in this State and certify that fact to

the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and the c lerks of all judicial tribunals in this

State.

/s/ Matthew J. Fader

Chief Justice
OMB Control No. 2060-0336

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL OPERATING PERMIT, 40 CFR PART 71

FORM PTE - POTENTIAL TO EMIT SUMMARY

INSTRUCTIONS: Complete this form once for the facility. You may find it helpful to complete form EMISS for each emissions unit before completing 

this form. For each emissions unit with emissions that count towards applicability, list the emissions unit ID and the PTE for the air 

pollutants listed below. If there are other air pollutants not listed below for which the source is a major source, provide attachments 

naming the air pollutant and showing calculation of the total for that pollutant. Round values to the nearest tenth of a ton. Add all 

values together in each column and enter the total in the space provided at the bottom of the table. Also report these totals in 

section J of form GIS.

Emissions Unit ID Regulated Air Pollutants and Pollutants for which the Source is Major 

NOx

(tons/yr)

VOC

(tons/yr)

SO2

(tons/yr)

PM10

(tons/yr)

CO

(tons/yr)

Lead

(tons/yr)

HAP

(tons/yr)

Tank 60 0.0512 4.98E-05

Tank 300 0.0287 2.71E-05

Tank 302 0.1894 1.84E-04

Tank 304 0.0567 5.45E-05

Tank 306 0.0993 9.59E-05

Tank 308 0.2218 2.15E-04

Tank 310 0.2569 2.48E-04

Tank 312 0.3517 3.42E-04

Tank 314 0.2117 2.05E-04

Bulk Solids Storage 2.56 0.0188

Fugitive Equipment Leaks 0.0738 0.0001

Boiler 1 4.51 0.248 0.027 0.343 3.79 0.00002 0.0037

Emergency Generator #1 0.441 0.035 0.029 0.031 0.095 0.0071

Emergency Generator #2 0.441 0.035 0.029 0.031 0.095 0.0071
TOTALS 74.99 15.63 66.25 12.62 30.85 0.0968 21.4
#### Charles SIMS, Appellant, v. BERKELEY LOAN AND THRIFT CORPORATION, a corporation, Appellee. In the Matter of Charles Sims, Bankrupt.

No. 10603.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Nov. 4, 1966.

Decided Dec. 2, 1966.

*693E. F. Lark, Charles Town, W. Va., for appellant.

Earl W. Weller, Martinsburg, W. Va. (Vance E. Seneindiver, Martinsburg, W. Va., on brief), for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF and BOREMAN, Circuit Judges.

HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge:

This is an appeal by the bankrupt from an order denying a discharge in bankruptcy. Because of the absence of sufficient supporting findings, we are unable to affirm.

The principal creditor objected to the discharge, contending falsity in a financial statement given to it some four years before the petition was filed, a failure to explain the disposition of certain liquid assets shown on the earlier financial statement and unreported in the bankruptcy schedules, a failure to account for certain other assets as to which there was a prima facie showing of possession at some time preceding the filing of the petition, and the failure to keep adequate records.

The Referee denied the discharge in an order which contained no findings of fact. After the filing of the petition to review with the District Court, the Referee prepared and filed a certificate containing conclusory findings of fact, but without any underlying findings to support the conclusions. The District Court accepted the conclusory findings.

In the hearing on appeal, this Court undertook to elicit information about the essential subsidiary facts upon which the conclusory findings would depend. We were unable to obtain any enlightenment from the attorneys, whose knowledge of the basic facts appeared to be as vague and indefinite as our own. Under the circumstances, we think it appropriate to vacate the order denying the bankrupt’s discharge, with instructions that, if the objector wishes to pursue the matter, the case be referred back to the Referee with instructions to permit the parties to offer additional evidence and, thereupon, to make specific findings of fact sufficient to support any ultimate conclusions he may then make.

Vacated and remanded.
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

F.D. MITCHELL, R.Q. WARD, J.A. FISCHER

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

EVAN R. TAPIO

MACHINIST'S MATE SECOND CLASS (E-5), U.S. NAVY

NMCCA 201400178

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 20 February 2014.

Military Judge: CDR Michael J. Luken, JAGC, USN.

Convening Authority: Commander, Navy Region Mid-Atlantic, 

Norfolk, VA.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: CDR S.J. Gawronski, 

JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: Maj Emmett Collazo, USMCR.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian Keller, Esq.

28 August 2014

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

 

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted 

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence 

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 

For the Court

 

 

 

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gerardo LEDEZMA-ZUNIGA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-41436 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 19, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S, Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Gerardo Ledezma-Zuniga, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gerardo Ledezma-Zuniga has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Le-dezma-Zuniga has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Ledezma-Zuniga’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s *368motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cm. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
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 Annual Report of Zealous, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”), I,  Milton C. Ault, III, 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) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the
      dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company
      for the periods presented.





By:
            /s/Milton C. Ault, IIIName:
            Milton
      C. Ault, IIITitle:
            Principal
      Executive Officer,Principal
      Financial Officer and DirectorDate:
            May
      18, 2009





This
certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Zealous, Inc. and will be retained by Zealous, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### Lamarr Barthell DINGLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6653

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 25, 2017

Lamarr Barthell Dingle, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee,

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lamarr Barthell Dingle seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2263(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dingle has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 'with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Jeff Vanderhurst v. Statoil Gulf Services, LLC

Appellate case number: 01-16-00461-CV

Trial court case number: 2014-41304

Trial court: 55th District Court of Harris County

The record was due to be filed in this case on July 13, 2016. On August 18, 2016, the 

District Clerk filed a form, advising that they had notified counsel of the amount due for the 

clerk’s record, the clerk’s record was ready, and appellant had “made payment arrangements.” 

Although this notice stated that appellant had made payment arrangements, a notice issued that 

appellant had not paid for the clerk’s record and requested a response by September 16, 2016. No 

response was filed, but we learned that appellant’s counsel thought payment had been made. No 

clerk’s record has ever been filed. On January 12, 2017, the district clerk filed a corrected notice 

indicating that appellant has not paid for the clerk’s record.

Accordingly, we order appellant to provide proof of payment for the clerk’s record and 

for the clerk’s record to be filed on or before February 8, 2017, or the appeal will be dismissed. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3((b); 42.3(b),(c).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually 

Date: January 19, 2017
Exhibit-32.1 -- Certification per Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Section 906)

The undersigned, Evagelina Esparza Barrza, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, of eClic, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)  the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
     December 31, 2003 (the "Report") 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)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.

Dated:  February 23, 2004

                                           /s/ Evagelina Esparza Barrza
                                           ----------------------------
                                               Evagelina Esparza Barrza
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               Chief Financial Officer



<PAGE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TIMOTHY BACON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3522

[March 28, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Paul L. Backman, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 03-007679 CF10A.

Timothy Bacon, South Bay, pro se. 

No response required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

 We affirm the denial of appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 

3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence without comment. Any 

argument regarding appellant’s motion for return of property should be 

raised in case number 4D17-2590.

 Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, TAYLOR and FORST, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge MUNATONES-JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40302 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jorge Munatones-Juarez, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Munatones-Juarez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Munatones-Juarez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

## Filings Instituting Proceedings

*Docket Numbers:*                     RP22-542-000.                

*Applicants:*                     El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.                

*Description:*                     § 4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming Amendment Filing (Pioneer) to be effective 3/1/2022.                

*Filed Date:*                     2/10/22.                          ( print page 9044)    

*Accession Number:*                     20220210-5128.                

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. ET 2/22/22.                

Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

                    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (                    *https://elibrary.ferc.gov/​idmws/​search/​fercgensearch.asp*) by querying the docket number.                

                    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:                     *http://www.ferc.gov/​docs-filing/​efiling/​filing-req.pdf.*                     For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

Dated: February 11, 2022.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-03422 Filed 2-16-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
EXHIBIT 10.68
 Move, Inc.
Performance  Based Restricted Stock
Unit Agreement
 2012 Performance Period
 Non-transferable
  Robert J. Krolik  (Grantee)
  Exhibit A
   MOVE, INC.
    
    Grant Date: July 20, 2009By: /s/ James S. Caulfield

Its: Authorized Officer




---



##### 



TERMS AND CONDITIONS
 Defined Terms
     Vesting of Units
 Completion of Performance Period.
 Upon Change of Control
  Conversion to Shares
 Exhibit A




---



##### 



Dividend Equivalent Rights
 Restrictions on Transfer and Pledge
 Limitation of Rights
 Payment of Taxes
 Arbitration
 - 3 -




---



##### 



Changes in Capital Structure
 Miscellaneous
 Successors of the Company
 Amendment and Modification
 Governing Law
 Notice
 Severability
 - 4 -
HILDA MALAVE, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

PERSONAL 

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 

ESTATE OF CRISTIAN E. 

MALAVE, DECEASED, 

CARLOS E. MALAVE, 

MELISSA MALAVE AND 

HILDA AND CARLOS E. 

MALAVE, AS GUARDIANS 

AND PARENTS OF ALYSSA 

MALAVE, A MINOR,

Appellants,

v.

JAMES J. TAYLOR, JR., AS 

PERSONAL 

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 

ESTATE OF VIRGINIA LEE 

PAGEL, DECEASED,

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. 1D16-5732

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 1, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Monica J. Brasington, Judge.

Christopher V. Carlyle and John N. Bogdanoff, The Carlyle Appellate Law Firm, 

The Villages, for Appellants.

Daniel M. Bachi, Sellars, Marion & Bachi, PA, West Palm Beach, for Appellee.
2

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, RAY, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Josiah Norris *versus*John Howe.

An administrator, licensed to sell the real estate of his intestate, had authority before the statute of 1817, c. 190, to adjourn the sale, acting therein *bond fide,*and without fraud.

This was a writ of entry *sur disseisin,*and was tried on the general issue at the last September term, in this county, before *Wilde,*J. The demandant claimed to hold the demanded premises under a conveyance from the administrators * of one *John Woodman,*dated June 18,1810. The deed of the *164administrators was objected to because that, having been duly authorized to make sale of all the real estate of their intestate, and having given the bond and taken the oath required by law, they gave due notice of the intended sale to be had on the 14th of May, 1810, and the sale was adjourned from that day to the said 18th of June.

In support of this objection, *Foote,*for the tenant, argued that administrators, under a license of court to sell the real estate of their intestates, had no authority to adjourn such sale. If, from any cause, a purchaser should not offer at the time advertised, the duty of the administrators would be to appoint another day for the sale, of which like public notice should be given as at first. The practice of adjourning sales, at the will of administrators, opens a door for fraud and management between them and a purchaser whom they may be disposed to favor.

One claiming under a statute must show that the statute has been exactly pursued. (1) This authority to adjourn was not given by the statutes in force at the time this transaction took place; and the special provision for the purpose in the late statute on this subject (2) shows the sense of the legislature, that no such power previously existed. A usage may aid to explain a doubtful statute, but ought not to be attended to in construing one which cannot admit of different interpretations. (3) The case of *Caldwell*vs. *Eaton*(4) is in point to show the strict conformity to the provisions of a statute which is required in those who would justify under it.

(1)

12 *Mass. Rep.*503, *Crouch & Ux.*vs. *Eveleth.*

(2)

*Stat.*1817, c. 190, § 13.

(3)

 1 *D. & E.*728, *The King*vs. *Hogg, per Grose,*J.

(4)

5 *Mass. Rep.*399

*Sed per Curiam.*

It might often occur, from the extremity of the weather, or from other unavoidable causes, that no bidders would appear at the time and place appointed, by an administrator, for the sale of the estate of his intestate. In such case, it would be his duty to adjourn the sale. If, herein, he should act *bona fide,*and without fraud, his doings must be supported. No suggestión of improper motive is *made as to the sale in this case. The objection made by the tenant cannot, therefore, prevail.

*Williams*for the demandant.