alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. D-2699.

#### In re Disbarment of Teitelbaum.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see *ante,*p. 1023.]
No. 12-8036.

#### Portillo *v.*Adams, Warden, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-7266.

#### Simmons *v.*Steele, Warden.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
January 24, 2017

STATE OF MINNESOTA 

IN SUPREME COURT 

ADM10-8008 

ORDER PROMULGATING AMENDMENTS 

TO THE RULES FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR 

fl 

ORU:EOF 

AJII!IB.I!A'IECOlln · 

The Minnesota State Board of Law Examiners filed a petition proposmg 

amendments to the Rules for Admission to the Bar. The court opened a public comment 

period. The Minnesota State Bar Association and Suzula Bidon filed comments supporting 

the Board's proposed amendment to Rule 10, but opposing the proposed amendment to 

Rule 16. The cout1 has considered the petition, the Board of Law Examiner's 

recommendations, and the comments. 

Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the attached amendments to the Rules for 

Admission to the Bar be, and the same are, prescribed and promulgated to be effective as 

of July 1, 2017. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the comments filed by the Minnesota State Bar 

Association and Suzula Bidon are referred to the State Board of Law Examiners for 

consideration and further response as deemed necessary by the Board. 

Dated: January 24, 2017 BY THE COURT: 

Lorie S. Gildea 

Chief Justice 
RULE 10. ADMISSION BY HOUSE COUNSEL LICENSE 

* * * * 

B. Eligibility. A lawyer licensed in another jurisdiction or the holder of a 

temporary house counsel license issued pursuant to Rule 9B and 9C, who 

intends to practice in Minnesota for more than 12 months, may apply for a 

house counsel license when the lawyer: 

* * * * 

( 1) Is employed in Minnesota as house counsel solely for a single 

corporation (or its subsidiaries), associatiOn, business, or 

governmental entity whose lawful business consists of activities other 

than the practice of law or the provision of legal services; 

(2) Has practiced law by engaging in one or more of the activities listed 

in Rule 7 A for at least 36 of the previous 60 months; and 

(3) Complies with the eligibility provisions of Rule 4A(l), (2), (3)(a), (4), 

(5), and (6). 

RULE 16. CONDITIONAL ADMISSION 

* * * * 

E. Length of Conditional Period. The initial conditional admission period 

shall not exceed 60 months, unless a complaint for a violation of the consent 

agreement or a complaint of unprofessional conduct has been filed with the 

OLPR. The filing of any complaint with the OLPR shall extend the 

conditional admission until disposition of the complaint by the OLPR. 

* * * *
#### Vincent Vitkowsky, Appellant, v Pandora Strasler, Respondent.

[52 NYS3d 865]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen Gesmer, J.), entered February 24, 2016, which, following a hearing, granted defendant mother’s motion to enforce plaintiff father’s child support obligations pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and divorce judgment, denied the father’s cross motion for suspension or downward modification of child support, and awarded attorney’s fees to the mother in the amount of $15,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this postjudgment divorce proceeding, the father’s reduced income was not an “unanticipated” change of circumstances that warranted a modification of the parties’ settlement agreement (Matter *of Boden v Boden,*42 NY2d 210, 212-213 [1977]). The father submitted an affidavit to the IAS court in June 2011 indicating that his partnership position was at risk. Nevertheless, he committed himself to paying more than $10,000 in monthly child support (inclusive of add-ons) when he signed the stipulation settling the divorce action approximately four months later. The father’s contention that he unwittingly depleted all of his assets two years after his formal termination in 2012 such that he was unable to meet his expenses or to contribute anything at all to paying his child support obligations is questionable, particularly given his payment of other large expenses for which he had no legal obligation.

The IAS court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the mother $15,000 in attorney’s fees, after taking into account the parties’ stipulation, which provides for legal fees resulting from a party’s default, and the parties’ financial circumstances.

We have considered the father’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.
No. 12-5271.

#### Delgado *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Baron A Reid, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 379]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (West, J.), rendered September 4, 2002, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Ritter, J.P., Florio, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7692

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CARL M. MCMANUS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District

Judge. (CR-95-27, CA-99-250-1-T)

Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carl M. McManus, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Thomas Church, Assistant

United States Attorney, Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Carl M. McManus seeks to appeal the district court’s order

construing his petition for writ of coram nobis as a motion filed

under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999) and denying it. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. McManus, No. CR-95-27; CA-99-250-1-T

(W.D.N.C. Dec. 3, 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.

DISMISSED
#### State of New York, Matter of, v Avon L.

2d Dept: 147 AD3d 1067

denied
No. 12-725.

#### Vurimindi *v.*Link et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 94 (Friday, May 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 27064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12920]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-448-000]


NorAm Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

May 11, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 1, 1998, NorAm Gas Transmission Company 
(NGT), 1111 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77210-4455, filed in 
Docket No. CP98-448-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 
157.216 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 
CFR 157.205 and 157.216) for authorization to abandon certain 
facilities in Texas, under NGT's blanket certificate issued in Docket 
No. CP82-384-000 and CP82-384-001 pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural 
Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the request that is on file 
with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    NGT specifically proposes to abandon and reclaim a 1-inch, 
inactive, domestic tap on Line CM-14 in Bowie County, Texas that 
delivered gas to Arkla, a distribution division on NorAm Energy Corp. 
for supplementary service to Hooks County School District. Arkla has 
notified NGT that it no longer needs this tap and that the school has 
requested that the tap be removed to allow cleanup on the location. NGT 
will reclaim the tap at an estimated cost of $579 and Arkla will 
reimburse NGT for $464 of this cost.
    NGT states that the proposed abandonment is not prohibited by its 
existing tariff and that it has sufficient capacity to accommodate the 
proposed changes without detriment or disadvantage to NGT's other 
customers. No service will be abandoned as a result of removing this 
tap.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is failed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-12920 Filed 5-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
October 2, 2015

Mr. André Alfa

6203 Commodore Sloat Dr.

Los Angeles, CA 90048

Dear Mr. Alfa:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your July 16, 2015, exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−2980, but 

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Douglas John Manifold, Jr., Appellant

No. 06

- 17

- 00103

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 196th District Court of Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 31,102 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Douglas John Manifold, Jr., has adequately indicated his
inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 9, 2017 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 96 (Tuesday, May 19, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 27587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13324]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Section 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on March 25, 1998, Arenol 
Corporation, 189 Meister Avenue, Somerville, New Jersey 0887, made 
application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for 
registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled 
substances listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
N-Ethylamphetamine (1475)..................  I                          
Difenoxin (9168)...........................  I                          
Amphetamine (1100).........................  II                         
Methamphetamine (1105).....................  II                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The firm plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances to 
produce pharmaceutical products for its customers.
    Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered 
with DEA to manufacture such substances may file comments or objections 
to the issuance of the proposed registration.
    Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, 
to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, 
Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, 
Washington, D.C. 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative 
(CCR), and must be filed no later than July 20, 1998.

    Dated: May 6, 1998.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-13324 Filed 5-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
Exhibit
32.1


Certification
required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(b) and section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350





I, Tim
Hunt, Chief Executive Officer of HuntMountain Resources, certify
that:





1.           This
report on Form 10-Q/A of HuntMountain Resources 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 this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of HuntMountain
Resources.





Date:
      November 10, 2008/s/ Tim HuntTim
      Hunt, Chief Executive
Officer
#### Com. v. Edmonds

03/23/2016

911 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 109
No. 12-8053.

#### Richter *v.*Illinois.

App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-8132.

#### Acosta-Sierra *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 26231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12703]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and 
Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of 
May 11, 1998.
    A closed meeting will be held on Thursday, May 14, 1998, at 10:00 
a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (8), (9)(A) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(4), 
(8), (9)(i) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at 
the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Hunt, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
May 14, 1998, at 10:00 a.m., will be:
    Institution of injunctive actions.
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alternations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact: The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.

    Dated: May 7, 1998.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-12703 Filed 5-8-98; 2:37 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
No. 12-8541.

#### Lewis *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
2017-1015.

#### State ex rel. Keith v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

Franklin App. No. 15AP-1080, 2017-0hio-4406. On appellant’s motion to withdraw motion to stay. Motion granted.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, M. G. Duncan, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of Milastar Corporation and Subsidiary;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: March 14, 2005/s/ M. G. DUNCANM. G. DuncanChief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1997

L. RUTHER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief

District Judge. (3:07-cv-00475-JRS)

Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 18, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

L. Ruther, Appellant Pro Se.

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

PER CURIAM:

L. Ruther appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his civil action without prejudice. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. Ruther v. United States,

3:07-cv-00475-JRS (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 14, 2007; entered Sept. 17,

2007). 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
No. 12-8429.

#### Bennett *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             831
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,194
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (346)
<INVENTORY>                                        777
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,781
<PP&E>                                           3,754
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (384)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,707
<BONDS>                                          7,424
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,342
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,613
<SALES>                                         57,610
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                58,252
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,456
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (280)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 792
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    284
<INCOME-TAX>                                        30
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 30
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        30
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>