alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[720 NYS2d 2]

#### In the Matter of George Rodriguez, an Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department,

January 9, 2001

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*James T. Shed*of counsel *(Thomas J. Cahill,*attorney), for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the New York Bar at the First Judicial Department in 1991, and has maintained an office for such practice within this Department at relevant times since then. He has not appeared in response to this motion to suspend.

*250Petitioner Departmental Disciplinary Committee opened its investigation in late 1999, after the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection reported that respondent had issued a subsequently dishonored check drawn on his attorney escrow account. During the course of that investigation, petitioner has received no less than 11 independent complaints from clients whose causes, all taken on by respondent since June 1999, were abandoned after the clients gave retainers aggregating more than $6,000. These cases involved matters ranging from criminal defense and bankruptcy, to divorce, probate, and an action to recover for embezzlement. In each case respondent took little or no action, and the client was never .contacted. Several of these clients made their own efforts to track respondent down before reporting these matters to petitioner.

For the past year, petitioner’s diligent efforts to locate respondent have been unsuccessful, even at the addresses listed by him on his most recent registration with the Office of Court Administration in December 1999. Respondent has failed to answer any of the 11 complaints delivered to his last known home and business addresses, or to contact petitioner in any way. In September 2000 this Court authorized service on respondent, by publication, of notice of this motion to suspend him from practice pending an investigation of disciplinary charges.

When an attorney is the subject of investigation into charges of professional misconduct, he may be immediately suspended from the practice of law as a threat to the public interest upon a finding of uncontested evidence of such misconduct, or of default in answering the charges (22 NYCRR 603.4 [e] [1]). Respondent’s failure to answer any of these charges, or to cooperate in any way with petitioner’s probe, evinces a shocking disregard for the judicial system that can only be interpreted as a deliberate and willful attempt to impede the disciplinary process *(Matter of Gordon,*142 AD2d 135), warranting immediate suspension pending resolution of these matters *(Matter of Chan,*240 AD2d 92).

Accordingly, the motion should be granted and respondent suspended from the practice of law in this State, effective immediately.

Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ., concur.

Motion granted, and respondent suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof, until such time as disciplinary matters pending before the Departmental Disciplinary Committee have been concluded and until the further order of this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 557 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 557

       To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize 
  appropriations for fiscal years 2005 through 2011 to carry out the 
                State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 2005

Mr. Kolbe (for himself, Mr. Berman, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Farr, 
Mr. Flake, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Issa, Ms. Zoe 
 Lofgren of California, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Reyes, 
   Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Shadegg, Ms. 
 Slaughter, Ms. Solis, Mr. Stark, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Udall of 
 New Mexico, and Ms. Watson) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize 
  appropriations for fiscal years 2005 through 2011 to carry out the 
                State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``State Criminal Alien Assistance 
Program Reauthorization Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2005 THROUGH 
              2011.

    Section 241(i)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1231(i)(5)) is amended by striking ``appropriated'' and all that 
follows through the period and inserting the following:
 ``appropriated to carry out this subsection--
                    ``(A) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
                2005;
                    ``(B) $750,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
                    ``(C) $850,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
                    ``(D) $950,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 
                2008 through 2011.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.48


 


Mr A Barron


[Address Intentionally
Omitted]


 


16th December 2009


 


Dear Andrew


 


It has been an
exciting and challenging year during which you have taken a great lead in
delivering significant improvement across Customer and Operations.


 


I am pleased to
confirm that with effect from 4th January 2010
your role will be Chief Operating Officer, reporting to me. Your terms and
conditions of employment remain unchanged. Should your role change in the
future, all terms and conditions would be reviewed.


 


I look forward to your
continued and expanded contribution to the GEC as we focus on the next 2 to 3
years, in particular as to how we as the leaders of Virgin Media can make a
significant impact to our people.


 


To
confirm your acceptance of this change, please sign and return one copy of this
letter, in the enclosed pre-addressed envelope to Lisa Hersey, People Team,
Building 270, Virgin Media Limited, Media House, Bartley Wood Business Park,
Hook, Hampshire, RG27 9UP.


 


	
  Yours sincerely,

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Neil Berkett

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Neil Berkett

  	
   

  
	
  CEO

  	
   

  
	
  Virgin Media Limited

  	
   

  



 


1

















 


IN WITNESS whereof this document has
been executed and delivered on the date first before written.


 


	
  SIGNED and DELIVERED
  as a DEED by VIRGIN

  MEDIA LIMITED acting by



  	
  }

  }

  }

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  }

  	
  /s/ Elisa Nardi

  
	
   

  	
  }

  	
   

  
	
  in the presence of :-

  	
  }

  	
  Director
  / Authorised Attorney

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Signed

  	
  /s/ Angie Hill

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Name

  	
  Angie Hill

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Address

  	
  [Intentionally Omitted]

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Occupation

  	
  Personal Assistant

  	
   

  	
   

  



 


I accept the changes to my
terms and conditions.


 


	
  Signed as a
  DEED by ANDREW BARRON in the presence of:

  	
  /s/ Andrew
  Barron

   

  	
  ANDREW BARRON

  The Executive

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Witness
  signature: /s/ Fiona Hillman

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Name: Fiona
  Hillman

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Address:
  [Intentionally Omitted]

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Occupation:
  Personal Assistant

  	
   

  	
   

  



 


2
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Alfredo CAMPOS-LARIOS, Appellant.

WD 80782

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: July 17, 2018

Irene Karns, Columbia, MO, Counsel for Appellant

Shaun Mackelprang, Jefferson City, MO, Counsel for Respondent

Before Division One: Lisa White Hardwick, P.J., Thomas H. Newton, and Edward R. Ardini, JJ.

**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

Mr. Alfredo Campos-Larios appeals the convictions by a Clay County jury of two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy and two counts of first-degree child molestation. He was sentenced (1) for sodomy to two fifty-year terms of imprisonment in the Department of Corrections consecutive to each other and consecutive to (2) two concurrent fifteen-year terms of imprisonment imposed for molestation. For reasons *671stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 30.25(b).
<PAGE>
                                    Exhibit 12.1 

                       REDWOOD EMPIRE BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARIES 

                  COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES 
                            (in thousands, except ratios)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     Year Ended
                                                                    December 31,
                                                                        1997
                                                                    ------------
<S>                                                                 <C>
EXCLUDING INTEREST ON DEPOSITS

Net income                                                                $3,441
Tax provision                                                              2,266
Fixed charges:
  Other interest expense                                                   1,359
                                                                    ------------
Earnings before taxes and fixed charges                                   $7,066
                                                                    ------------
                                                                    ------------
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                          5.20
                                                                    ------------
                                                                    ------------

INCLUDING INTEREST ON DEPOSITS

Fixed charges, per above                                                  $1,359
Interest on deposits                                                      15,428
                                                                    ------------
Total fixed charges and interest on deposits                             $16,787
                                                                    ------------
                                                                    ------------
Earnings before taxes and fixed charges, per above                        $7,066
Interest on deposits                                                      15,428
                                                                    ------------
Total earnings before taxes, fixed charges and 
 interest on deposits                                                    $22,494
                                                                    ------------
                                                                    ------------
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                          1.34
                                                                    ------------
                                                                    ------------
Surplus                                                                   $5,707
                                                                    ------------
                                                                    ------------

</TABLE>
The 1997 earnings are adequate to cover fixed charges by the amount noted above.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk August 6, 2009

d0720 

# Order

August 6, 2009

138178

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138178 COA: 285111 Oakland CC: 2002-183420-FC CORY IGNACIO HUDSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the December 9, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
MARCUS TYRONE BROADNAX

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

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. 1D 15

- 1602

_ ____________________________/

Opinion filed May 15, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Ross Goodman , Judge

.

Marcus Tyrone Broadnax, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. Fla. R. App. P. 9.420(a)(2); see Rivera v. Dep’t of Health , 40

Fla. Law Weekly D871 (Fla. 1st DCA April 15, 2015).

WOLF, ROWE, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 7162

AARON LANCE STEPHEN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. GERALD BAKER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SANTOS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ISSAC; JUAN ISIDRO COLLADO , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Richard E. Myers, II , Chief District Judge. ( 5:22

- ct

- 03161

- M )

Submitted : April 11, 2024 Decided: April 16, 2024

Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Aaron Lance Stephen, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7162 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM : Aaron Lance Stephen appeals the district court ’ s order dismiss ing without prejudice
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint

. Stephen failed to a mend his complaint by the deadline provided by the court

. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint without prejudice after Stephen had been warned of the consequences of failing to timely comply with the court’s order

. See Ballard v. Carlson,
882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (holding district court ’ s dismissal following explicit and reasonable warning was not an abuse of discretion). We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible e rror. Stephen v. Baker , No. 5:22

- ct

- 03161

- M (E.D.N.C. Oct. 17, 2023). 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 USCA4 Appeal: 23-7162 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway,

 Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

August 6, 2009 

d0720 

Order 

 

August 6, 2009 

138178 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138178 

 COA: 285111 

Oakland CC: 2002-183420-FC 

CORY IGNACIO HUDSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 9, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7935

In Re: WENDELL EDWARD BETANCOURT,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-01-25)

Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 12, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wendell Edward Betancourt, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Wendell Edward Betancourt petitions for writ of mandamus,

alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion

for recusal. He seeks an order from this court directing the

district court to act. The district court denied Betancourt’s

motion for recusal on December 13, 2004. Accordingly, because the

district court has acted on Betancourt’s motion, we deny his

mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. 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. 

PETITION DENIED
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Rickey CHARLES, Appellant.

WD 79410

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: May 1, 2018

Nathan J. Aquino, Jefferson City, for Respondent

Damien Loyola, for Appellant

Before Division Two: Karen King Mitchell, Presiding Judge, Alok Ahuja, Judge and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM:

Rickey Charles appeals his convictions for two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy under section 566.064, alleging that the trial court committed plain error by entering two convictions for the same offense in violation of his right to be free from double jeopardy. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum of law has been provided to the parties. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 30.25(b).
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the Fund, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which the Report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Funds disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in the Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the period covered by the Report based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in the Report any change in the Funds internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the Funds most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Funds internal control over
financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the Fund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 Funds internal control over financial reporting.
 By: /s/ Roman GregorigRoman GregorigVice President and Principal Financial OfficerMay 15, 2007
 E-3
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 

          - [Docket Nos. ER09-556-000; Docket Nos. ER09-556-000; and ER06-615-039; ER08-367-003] 

On March 6, 2009, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) filed a Motion to Modify Effective Date of Certain Proposed Tariff Revisions and for Expedited Answer Period (March 6 Motion). In the filing, CAISO requests that the Commission establish an expedited time period to file answers to the motion in order to facilitate Commission consideration of the motion. By this notice, the date for filing answers to CAISO's March 6 Motion is shortened to and including March 13, 2009. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

 [FR Doc. E9-5777 Filed 3-17-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### In the Matter of Lenora Myrick, Appellant, v Judy Saunders et al., Respondents.

[774 NYS2d 756]

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Clark, J.), dated December 19, 2002, which granted the motion of the Administration for Children’s Services to dismiss the petition for custody of her niece, and dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the appellant’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]; *Matter of Minervini v Department of Social Servs. of Orange County,*284 AD2d 333 [2001]; *Matter of Kamate v Kamate,*260 AD2d 637 [1999]). Altman, J.P., H. Miller, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.