alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

In re: 

BIG BEN 33166, LLC, a New Mexico 

Limited Liability Company,

 Debtor.

________________________________/

Case No.: 21-19129-LMI

Chapter 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ATTORNEY AGNES MOMBRUN GETER

SHOULD NOT BE SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THIS COURT

AND SETTING HEARING

THIS CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte after hearing on October 14, 2021, upon 

the Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss Case with Prejudice for Two Years (ECF #6) (the “Trustee’s 

Motion”) filed by the Trustee on September 23, 2021, and the Debtor’s Motion to Dismiss 

Bankruptcy Case (ECF #18) (the “Debtor’s Motion”) filed by the Debtor on October 13, 2021

(collectively with the Trustee’s Motion the “Motions”). Debtor’s Counsel, Agnes Mombrun 

Geter, Esq., failed to appear at the hearing to represent the Debtor. A review of the record 

indicates that Debtor’s counsel was served with the Notice of Hearing, and in fact, the Court 

Laurel M. Isicoff

Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge

___________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on October 19, 2021.

Case 21-19129-LMI Doc 22 Filed 10/20/21 Page 1 of 2
presumes the Debtor’s Motion was filed in an attempt to avoid the hearing on the Trustee’s 

Motion.

In addition to counsel failing to appear at the hearing, it appears from the record that the 

bankruptcy petition (the second filed by this Debtor in the space of four months) was filed with 

no intention to reorganize, and solely for the purpose of seeking to stop a foreclosure sale. If 

true, then the filing of the bankruptcy petition by counsel was a violation of Rule 9011 of the 

Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. 

Finally, a review of the docket indicates that the corporate authorization accompanying 

the petition was unsigned, bringing into question whether the filing of the petition was properly 

authorized.

Based on the foregoing the Court deems it appropriate to consider whether Attorney 

Geter should be sanctioned by this Court. It is therefore, 

ORDERED that Agnes Mombrun Geter, Esq. shall appear in person at a hearing on 

November 29, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., before the Honorable Laurel M. Isicoff, United States 

Bankruptcy Court, 301 N. Miami Avenue, Courtroom 8, Miami, Florida to show cause why she 

should not lose her privileges to practice law in this Court pursuant to Local Rule 2090-2(B)(1)

by virtue of filing a bankruptcy petition that is clearly in violation of Rule 9011 of the Federal 

Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

### 

Copies furnished to:

Agnes Mombrun Geter, Esq.

The Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order upon all parties in interest.

Case 21-19129-LMI Doc 22 Filed 10/20/21 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 99.2

   CAUTIONARY STATEMENT UNDER PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995
                  "SAFE HARBOR" FOR FORWARD-LOOKING DISCLOSURES

Certain forward-looking statements are included in this Form 10-K and may be
made by spokespersons based on then-current expectations of management. All
forward-looking statements made by us are subject to risks and uncertainties.
One can identify forward-looking statements by the use of words such as
"expects," "plans," "will," "estimates," "forecasts," "projects," "believes,"
"anticipates," and other words of similar meaning. One can also identify them by
the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. These
statements are likely to address our growth strategy, financial results,
regulatory issues, status of product approvals, development programs,
litigation, and investigations.

Certain factors, including but not limited to those listed below, may cause
actual results to differ materially from current expectations and historical
results.

     - Economic factors over which we have no control, including changes in
inflation, interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates

     - Changes in accounting standards promulgated by the Financial Accounting
Standards Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants, and the Emerging Issues Task Force, which are
adverse for us

     - Internal factors, such as changes in business strategies and the impact
of restructurings, asset impairments, technology acquisition and disposition
transactions, and business combinations.

We undertake no duty to update forward-looking statements.

                                       40
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of National Residential Properties, Inc.
(the "COMPANY") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the SEC on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), I hereby certify, in my capacity
as an officer of the Company, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ RICHARD ASTROM
---------------
Richard Astrom
Chief Executive Officer
January 8, 2004

In connection with the quarterly report of National Residential Properties, Inc.
(the "COMPANY") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the SEC on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), I hereby certify, in my capacity
as an officer of the Company, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ CHRISTOPHER ASTROM
---------------
Christopher Astrom
Chief Financial Officer
January 8, 2004




















                                       38
Exhibit (10)(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm" in Post-Effective Amendment No. 21 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-170529) and Amendment No. 582 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 31, 2017, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 7, 2017, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.







/s/ Ernst & Young LLP




Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


August 4, 2017
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of The Jackson Rivers Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Dennis Lauzon, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                      /s/ Dennis Lauzon
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Dennis Lauzon, Chief Financial Officer and
                                      Treasurer
                                      Date: April 12, 2004


<PAGE>
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Where is the water? Coast [poster]              

      March 26, 2024    

View Report

View Report

Description

Water is an integral part of how we interact with the environment and live our everyday lives. This educational poster illustrates where water is on the coast, how water moves, and different ways that water is used both naturally and through human interaction. This poster is intended for eighth-grade audiences and younger.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Hayley Corson-Dosch

##### Hydrologist

Water Resources Mission Area

hcorson-dosch@usgs.gov

#### Cee Nell, PhD

##### Data Visualization Specialist

Water Resources Mission Area

cnell@usgs.gov

608-828-9901

## Related Content

                  - Connect  Hayley Corson-DoschHydrologistWater Resources Mission AreaEmailhcorson-dosch@usgs.govCee Nell, PhDData Visualization SpecialistWater Resources Mission AreaEmailcnell@usgs.govPhone608-828-9901
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-21-00081-CR 

 

CYRUS LUA GRAY III, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 22nd District Court 

 Hays County, Texas 

Trial Court No. CR-18-0567-A, Honorable R. Bruce Boyer, Presiding 

July 7, 2021 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 

Appellant, Cyrus Lua Gray III, filed a notice of appeal, pro se, from the trial court’s 

purported denial of his “motion for exculpatory evidence.”

1

 We dismiss the appeal for 

want of jurisdiction.

1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the 

Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 

(West 2013).
2

In 2018, appellant was indicted for capital murder.

2

 He was appointed trial counsel, 

but his counsel was later allowed to withdraw. Proceeding pro se, appellant filed a 

“Motion for Exculpatory and Mitigating Evidence (Brady Material)” on October 19, 2020. 

The clerk’s record does not contain a trial court order ruling on appellant’s motion or a 

judgment of conviction.

We have jurisdiction to consider a criminal appeal from a judgment of conviction

or where expressly granted by law. McIntosh v. State, 110 S.W.3d 51, 52 (Tex. App.—

Waco 2002, order) (per curiam). Here, the record does not contain the purported trial 

court order denying appellant’s motion for exculpatory evidence. Even if the trial court 

had signed such an order, we have found no authority granting immediate appellate 

review. See Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (holding that 

appellate courts have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders, such as pretrial rulings, 

only where that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law). 

By letter of May 19, 2021, we directed appellant to file a response showing how 

we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Appellant filed a response but has not 

demonstrated grounds for continuing the appeal.

Because appellant has not presented this Court with a judgment of conviction or 

appealable order for review, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and deny 

appellant’s request for appointed appellate counsel.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.

2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.03(a)(2) (West 2019).
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains editorial corrections of previously

published Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule,

and Notice documents. These corrections are

prepared by the Office of the Federal

Register. Agency prepared corrections are

issued as signed documents and appear in

the appropriate document categories

elsewhere in the issue.

Corrections Federal Register

38359

Vol. 62, No. 137

Thursday, July 17, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. RP97-414-000]

Florida Gas Transmission Company;

Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC

Gas Tariff

Correction

In notice document 97–18313

beginning on page 37577 in the issue of

Monday, July 14, 1997 the docket

number should read as set forth above.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. RP96-200-023]

NorAm Gas Transmission Company;

Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC

Gas Tariff

Correction

In notice document 97–18322

appearing on page 37579 in the issue of

Monday, July 14, 1997 the docket

number should read as set forth above.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 97-2]

Gilbert J. Elian, M.D.; Revocation of

Registration

Correction

In notice document 97–17656

beginning on page 36574 in the issue of

Tuesday, July 8, 1997 make the

following correction:

On page 36575, in the first column, in

the third full paragraph, in the third line

‘‘21 CFR 131.67’’ should read ‘‘21 CFR

1316.67’’.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-38760; File No. SR-CHX97-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing of and Order Granting

Temporary Accelerated Approval to a

Proposed Rule Change by the Chicago

Stock Exchange, Incorporated Relating

to Trading Variations

Correction

In notice document 97–17253

beginning on page 35864 in the issue of

Wednesday, July 2, 1997, make the

following correction:

1. On page 35864, in the second

column, under the subject heading,

insert ‘‘June 23, 1997’’.

2. On page 35865, in the third

column, the authorizing signature

should read:

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Asteroids

Filters

              - science_science(7)
              - products_publications(69)
              - multimedia_audio(1)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(1)
              - multimedia_image(16)
              - multimedia_image-141771(10)
              - multimedia_image-141776(2)
              - (-)multimedia_image-204460(4)
              - (-)multimedia_slideshow(1)
              - multimedia_video(5)
              - multimedia_video-149194(4)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - news_other_news(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

## By Year

Satellite imagery        September 26, 2022        Dimorphos Nomenclature

Satellite imagery        September 26, 2022        Didymos Nomenclature

slideshow        July 20, 2023        Planetary Science at the USGS

Satellite imagery        April 19, 2019        Re-Entry

Satellite imagery        August 14, 2002        Gosses Bluff
Crystal RICHARDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1132

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 21, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

In Re: 

Edelmis O Nazco Vera Case No. 20-19844-AJC

 Chapter 13

/

ORDER GRANTING EX-PARTE MOTION TO VACATE DISCHARGE FOR THE 

SOLE PURPOSE OF FILING REAFFIRMATION AGREEMENT WITH TD AUTO 

FINANCE, LLC AND APPROVING THE REAFFIRMATION AGREEMENT

THIS CAUSE having come upon Debtor’s Ex-Parte Motion to Vacate Discharge for the 

Sole Purpose of Filing Reaffirmation Agreement with TD Auto Finance, LLC (herein 

“Creditor”) and to Approve the Reaffirmation Agreement (herein “Motion”; ECF#18) on 

December 15, 2020 and the Court having reviewed the Motion and the Reaffirmation 

Agreement, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is;

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Debtor’s Motion is Granted.

2. The discharge in the instant case is vacated for the sole purpose of filing the 

A. Jay Cristol, Judge

United States Bankruptcy Court

_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on December 16, 2020.

Case 20-19844-AJC Doc 19 Filed 12/17/20 Page 1 of 2
reaffirmation with TD Auto Finance, LLC.

3. Creditor, TD Auto Finance, LLC, is directed to file the reaffirmation agreement 

within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. 

4. If the reaffirmation agreement is not filed within thirty (30) days, the clerk of 

Court is directed to re-issue the debtor’s discharge. 

# # #

Debtor’s counsel, Robert Sanchez, Esq. is directed to deliver true copies of the foregoing Order 

to all interested parties. 

Case 20-19844-AJC Doc 19 Filed 12/17/20 Page 2 of 2
Case 21-10749-RAM Doc 25 Filed 04/30/21 Page 1 of 3
Case 21-10749-RAM Doc 25 Filed 04/30/21 Page 2 of 3
Case 21-10749-RAM Doc 25 Filed 04/30/21 Page 3 of 3
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10789 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JOSE RUEPERTO ALANIZ Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:99-CR-5-2
Before KING, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose RuepertoAlaniz appeals thesentence imposed upon revocation ofhis supervised release. The release followed his guilty plea conviction for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and for distributing cocaine. Alaniz argues that the district court imposed a longer sentence of imprisonment than that recommended by the United States Sentencing Guidelines’ policy statements applicable to violations of supervised release (which he says was within the range of four to ten months). He asserts that this was plain error. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D February 29, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-10789

2 The district court may impose any sentence that falls within the maximum term ofimprisonment allowed by statute for the revocation sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). In doing so, the district court is to consider the factors set forth in § 3553(a) and the advisory policy statements found i n Chapter Seven of the Guidelines. U nited States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 90 (5th Cir. 1994). The statutory maximum term of imprisonment upon the revocation of Alaniz’s supervised release was five years. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Consequently, it was not error to sentence Alaniz to two years in prison. See id. Alaniz’s argument that the district court did not adequately articulate its sentencing reasons alsofails. On plain-error review of a revocation sentence, it suffices to show that the sentencing factors were at least implicitly considered. United States v. Teran, 98 F.3d 831, 836 (5th Cir. 1996). By announcing the
reasons it gave for Alaniz’s revocation sentence, the district court demonstrated that it had implicitly considered the appropriate sentencing factors. See id. AFFIRMED.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Arizona

Filters

              - science_education(1)
              - science_science(91)
              - products_data(378)
              - products_maps(425)
              - products_publications(3675)
              - products_web_tools(6)
              - multimedia_audio(20)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(19)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(1)
              - multimedia_before_after(3)
              - multimedia_image(406)
              - multimedia_image-141769(9)
              - multimedia_image-141770(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(354)
              - multimedia_image-141774(2)
              - multimedia_image-141775(10)
              - multimedia_image-141776(17)
              - multimedia_image-204460(10)
              - multimedia_image-207195(1)
              - multimedia_slideshow(4)
              - multimedia_video(123)
              - multimedia_video-149194(48)
              - multimedia_video-149195(51)
              - multimedia_video-149196(5)
              - multimedia_video-149197(10)
              - multimedia_video-149198(2)
              - documents_file(12)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - documents_file-149224(3)
              - news_news-149245(10)
              - news_news-149246(1)
              - news_news-149248(12)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - news_other_news(23)
              - connect_locations(4)
              - connect_social_media(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(85)
              - other_basic-37(2)
              - other_basic-42(20)
              - (-)other_basic-43(1)

## By Location

              - arizona(1)

## By Year

Human Capital        September 19, 2018        Don Wilhelms
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1352

MARGARET M. GLUNK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BELK STORES SERVICES, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-201-3-P)

Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 27, 1998

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Margaret M. Glunk, Appellant Pro Se. Jacob John Modla, HAYNSWORTH,

BALDWIN, JOHNSON & GREAVES, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Margaret Glunk appeals the district court's order granting Belk

Store Services' motion for summary judgment on her claims of sexual

discrimination, constructive discharge, and violation of the Equal

Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1) (1994). We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Glunk

v. Belk Stores Svcs., Inc., No. Ca-96-201-3-P (W.D.N.C. Jan. 9,

1998). 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 112 (Monday, June 12, 1995)]
[Corrections]
[Page 30923]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-60612]



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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-35744; File No. SR-CBOE-95-25]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate 
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by the Chicago Board Options 
Exchange, Incorporated, Relating to the Examination Specifications for 
the General Securities Registered Representative (Series 7) Examination

Correction

    In notice document 95-12983 beginning on page 28005 in the issue of 
Friday, May 26, 1995, make the following corrections:
    1. On page 28006, in the third column, the signature should read 
``Jonathan G. Katz''.
    2. On the same page, in the same column, in the FR Doc. line, the 
file date should read ``5-25-95''.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D