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

JOSEPH S. GILBERT, ESQ., 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

STATE BAR OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. . 

No. 84113 

FILED 

MAY 1 3 2022 

ELIZABETH A. BROWN 

CLERK Q SUPREME COURT 

BY f 

DEPUTY C.LER-IC 

ORDER DENYING PETITION AND LIFTING STAY 

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition 

seeks, amongst other relief, a writ directing the dismissal of disciplinary 

proceedings and an investigation into the State Bar. Having considered the 

briefing and documentation filed by both parties, we are not persuaded that 

our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. Smith v. 

Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 

(1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this 

court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ 

petition). 

Petitioner Joseph S. Gilbert argues that respondent the State 

Bar of Nevada released a proposed letter of reprimand issued by a screening 

panel in the underlying disciplinary proceedings to the press in violation of 

confidentiality rules. But the documentation before this court contains no 

evidence tending to show that the State Bar released the proposed letter or 

violated confidentiality rules, such that Gilbert has failed to meet his 

burden of showing that writ relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial 

Dist. Court, 120 Nev..222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the 

party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is 

0102 
warranted). The State Bar also has not violated Gilbert's due process rights 

such that writ relief would be warranted because the proposed reprimand 

did not become final due to Gilbert's timely objection to the same and the 

State Bar has not otherwise recommended any discipline for Gilbert at this 

time. See SCR 105(1)(b), (c) (providing that an attorney may object to a 

screening panel's decision to issue a letter of reprimand, after which the 

State Bar must commence formal proceedings; and that "a panel shall not 

make a finding of misconduct until the attorney has been given an 

opportunity to respond to the allegations against the attorney"). As Gilbert 

has failed to show he is entitled to any of the relief he seeks, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED.' 

Hardesty 

Stiglich 

, J. 

Herndon 

cc: Clark Hill PLC 

Lipson Neilson P.C. 

Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada 

'Because we deny writ relief, we deny Gilbert's request for attorney 

fees and costs related to these writ proceedings and lift the stay of the 

disciplinary proceedings previously imposed by this court on March 23, 

2022. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 4044 

2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, 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

November 22, 2010 

y1115 

Order 

 

November 22, 2010 

141630 

EDWIN MARTEL, BRUCE CARPENTER, 

WILLIAM LANE and CLAUDIA AGEMAK, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v SC: 141630 

 COA: 296687 

Ingham CC: 09-000866-AA 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 9, 2010 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
f U.S. DISTRICT COURT.

i NORTHE rl
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED. OF TEXAS
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF THXAS 2
AMARILLO DIVISION |
AUG | 9 2008
CLERK, US. DISTRICT
LITTLE JOE CORDERO, § ey court
8 Deputy
Petitioner, §
§
v. § 2:05-CV-0140
§
NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, §
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, §
Correctional Institutions Division, §
§
Respondent. §

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS,
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, and
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
and DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner has filed with this Court an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person
in state custody. On June 26, 2008, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation in this cause, recommending therein that habeas relief be denied. On July 17,
2008, petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. On July 22, 2008, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Supplemental Report and Recommendation, addressing petitioner’s
objections to the Report and Recommendation. As of this date, petitioner has not filed objections
to the Supplemental Report and Recommendation.

The undersigned United States District Judge has made an independent examination of
the record in this case and has considered the objections made by petitioner to the Report and
Recommendation.

The objections filed by petitioner are without merit and are hereby OVERRULED. The

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and Supplemental Report and Recommendation



are hereby ADOPTED. Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner
LITTLE JOE CORDERO is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTERED this LS x day of (lil Jf 2008.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
KAM HABIBI, D.C., P.A., Appellant, v. 7M PROPERTIES, LLC, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3764

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[September 27, 2018]

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
D.D. v. CULLMAN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160872

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 9, 2018

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 May 29, 2020 a0526

Order 

Clerk

May 29, 2020

160565

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 160565

COA: 349343

Mecosta CC: 03-005118-FC

SHANNON LADEL KEYS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 18, 2019 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Mecosta County 

Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after 

the date of this order.

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 28, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 8316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01804]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 04/04-0324; License No. 04/04-0325]

Plexus Fund III, L.P., Plexus Fund QP III, L.P.; Surrender of 
License of Small Business Investment Companies

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small 
Business Administration under section 309 of the Small Business 
Investment Act of 1958, as amended, and 13 CFR 107.1900 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations to function as a small business investment company 
under the Small Business Investment Company License Nos. 04/04-0324 and 
04/04-0325 issued to Plexus Fund III, L.P. and Plexus Fund QP III, 
L.P., respectively, said licenses are hereby declared null and void.

Thomas Morris,
Director, Patient Capital Investments, Office of Investment and 
Innovation, United States Small Business Administration.
[FR Doc. 2025-01804 Filed 1-27-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW   Document 40   Filed 01/05/18   Page 1 of 2

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW   Document 40   Filed 01/05/18   Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors

Champps Entertainment, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference
in the registration statements Nos. 333-106792 and 333-90287 on Forms S-8, and registration statement No. 333-102261 on Form S-3, of Champps Entertainment, Inc. of our report dated September 6, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance
sheets of Champps Entertainment, Inc. as of July 1, 2007 and July 2, 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in shareholders equity and comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended July 1, 2007, managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of July 1, 2007, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of July 1,
2007, which reports appear in the July 1, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of Champps Entertainment, Inc.



|                 
|-----------------
|KPMG LLP         
|                 
|Denver, Colorado 
|September 6, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

The undersigned Chief Executive Officer and President and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Marquee
Holdings Inc. (the "Company"), each hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



Dated:
May 21, 2009

|                                                                     |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ GERARDO I. LOPEZ                                                 |  | 
|Gerardo I. Lopez
Chief Executive Officer, Director and President     |  | 
|/s/ CRAIG R. RAMSEY                                                  |  | 
|Craig R. Ramsey
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer |  | 

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

---
Exhibit 12.1 

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Ralph Hamers, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of ING Groep N.V.; 

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

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

4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have: 

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

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financialreporting; and 

5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(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 company’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 17, 2014
EXHIBIT
32.1


The
following certification is provided by the undersigned Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of Royal Financial, Inc. on the basis of such
officers’ knowledge and belief for the sole purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002.
  CERTIFICATION
  In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Royal Financial, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2008 (the “Report”), the
undersigned hereby 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) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
  (2)           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date:  May 15,
      2008
                By:
                /s/Leonard
      SzwajkowskiLeonard
      SzwajkowskiChief
      Executive Officer and President
 By:
                /s/Jodi
      A. OjedaJodi
      A. OjedaChief
      Financial Officer
  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 upon request.  This certification accompanies
the Report and shall not be treated as having been filed as part of this
Report.
EX PARTE Shannon Ray JOHNSON

1161043 (CR-15-0643)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

October 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 52 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That, in the enrollment of H.R. 4373, the 

3 Clerk of the House of Representatives shall amend the 

4 title so as to read: ‘‘Making further continuing appropria5 tions for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2023, and 

6 for other purposes.’’. 

Passed the Senate December 22, 2022. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 52 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 

4373.
NO. 07-04-0544-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D NOVEMBER 30, 2004

______________________________ IN RE MICH AEL LOU GARR ETT

_________________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS an d CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Relator Michael Lou Garret t seeks a w rit of mandamus ordering responden t, the Honorable John B. Board, Judg e of the 181 st Distric t Court of Potter

County, to rule on a motion pending in cause number 91,954-B . We dismiss the petition. Relator file d hi s pet iti on for

a w rit of man damus with t his Court on November 18, 2004. In the pe tition h e compl ains tha t Judge Board has failed to rule on relator’s motion for a temporary

restraini ng order and a pr eliminary injunction. The clerk of the 181 st District Court has provi ded this Cour t with a copy of

an order signed by

Judge Board o n November 19, 2004, denying the motion. Becaus e the trial court has rul ed on the motion, a s requested by relator, relator’s reques t for a wri t of mandam us is moot. Accordingl y, the petition for w rit of mandamus is dismissed. Per Curiam
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

ORDER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND 

JEANNIE GONZALES, an individual,

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

LABORATORY CORPORATION OF 

AMERICA HOLDINGS, a Delaware 

Corporation; and DOES 1–50, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 4:16-cv-07346-HSG

[Assigned to the Hon. Judge Haywood S. 

Gilliam, Jr.] 

ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION FOR 

ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULING 

ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR THE 

PARTIES TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY 

 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Time 

declar

extend

Close

Last D

Repor

Last D

Exper

Close

Dispo

IT IS 

Dated

Having co

for the Parti

ration, and g

The Joint S

ded and the S

Ev

 of Fact Dis

Date to Serv

rts 

Date to Serv

rt Reports 

 of Expert D

ositive Motio

SO ORDER

d: August 4, 2

 

 

nsidered the

ies to Compl

good cause ap

Stipulation i

Scheduling O

vent 

scovery

ve Expert 

ve Rebuttal 

Discovery

on Hearing

RED.

2017 

e Joint Stipul

lete Discove

ppearing, the

is GRANTED

Order in this

Au

Sep

Sep

Oct

Date No

ORDE

lation for Or

ry (the “Join

e Court rules

D. The dead

s case is mod

February

Schedulin

ugust 29, 201

ptember 12, 

ptember 26, 

tober 10, 20

vember 30, 

ER

rder Modifyi

nt Motion”),

s as follows

dline for the

dified as foll

17, 2017 

ng Order

17 

2017 

2017 

017 

2017 

 _

 

 

ing Scheduli

 along with 

: 

e Parties to c

lows: 

Pro

October 

October 

Novemb

Novemb

January 

__________

 Honorable 

 United Stat

ing Order to

the supporti

omplete disc

oposed New

13, 2017 

27, 2017 

ber 10, 2017

ber 24, 2017

11, 2018 

___________

Haywood S

tes District J

o Extend 

ng 

covery is 

w Dates 

__________

. Gilliam, Jr

Judge 

_

.
**Exhibit 12.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Ralph Hamers, certifythat: 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of ING Groep N.V.; 

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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The company’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared; 

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to bedesigned under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; 

(d) Disclosed in this report anychange in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date:March 16, 2015
Alonzo GUTIERREZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1688

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 30, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 4:05-cv-00548-A Document 8 Filed 09/30/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 99
 

 Case 4:05-cv-00548-A Document 8 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 100