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

In the Matter of : No. 7 DB 2022 (No. 9 RST 2022)

:

JAIME ROSENMAN-GORDON : Attorney Registration No. 79080

:

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT :

 FROM RETIRED STATUS : (Montgomery County)

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of March, 2022, the Report and Recommendation of 

Disciplinary Board Member dated March 15, 2022, is approved and it is ORDERED that

JAIME ROSENMAN-GORDON, who has been on Retired Status, has never been 

suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that she has the moral qualifications, 

competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, 

shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this 

Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing 

of this matter shall be paid by the Petitioner.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 2065

JUDAMEYRE L. MCRAE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. NIAGARA BOTTLING; MELANIE CALKINS; GREG BANKS , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville

. Kenneth D. Bell , District Judge. ( 5:20

- cv
- 00149

- KDB

- DCK )

Submitted : February 23 , 2021 Decided: February 25, 2021

Before MOTZ , KEENAN , and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Judameyre L. McRae, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Judameyre L. M cRae appeals the district court’s order dismi ssing his civil complaint for lack of subject matter and diversity jurisdiction. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. McRae v. Niagara Bottling , No. 5:20

- cv
- 00149

- KDB

- DCK (W.D.N.C . Oct. 5, 2020 ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

* McRae does not challenge the district court’s determination that it did not have federal question jurisdiction over hi s complaint. Therefore, McRae has forfeited appellate review of this determination. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
<PAGE>


Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Oxford Ventures, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB/A for the year ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel
K. Leonard, President, CFO and CEO 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) 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Daniel Leonard
----------------------
Daniel Leonard
President, CEO and CFO
July 5, 2005
**EXHIBIT 10.9(e)**

**FOURTH AMENDMENT**

**TO**

**ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS, INC.**

**401(K) PLAN**

The Section 5.3(d) of the Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows:

I.                                         Section 5.3(d) of the Plan is amended as follows:

(d)       For the 2005 and 2006 Plan Year, theCompany shall contribute and allocate, for each Participant                    setforth in Appendix C — Special Provisions for Transferred Pharmacia Employees,which is hereby attached and                    made apart of the Plan, a Profit Sharing Contribution in addition to the Profit-SharingContribution described in                    subsection(c) above which, when added to Forfeitures available after the application ofSection 6.3, is equal to the                    allocationamount set forth for each such Participant in the attached Appendix C.

INWITNESS WHEREOF, Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. hereby executes this FourthAmendment to the Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. 401(k) Plan on this 14th day of December, 2006.

ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS, INC.
| BY:                                                       | /s/ AIMEE WEISNER |   |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| Aimee Weisner                                             |              |   |
| Corporate Vice President, General Counsel, and  Secretary |              |   |

 

----
[No. 37340-4-I.

Division One.

August 18, 1997.]

#### Franciszek P. Starczewski, *Appellant,*v. Dorothy M. Conley, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 92-2-03527-6, David F. Hulbert, J., entered October 6 and November 6, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
# C_2008270EN.01001501.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/15

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5154 — CASC JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 270/03)

On 14 August 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5154. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5154. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
## Court of Appeals of the State of Geo rgia

ATLA NTA,

_________________ _ The Court of

Appeals he reby passes

the followi

ng order:

A14A2018. ROGER KING v. THE STATE.

In 1991, Roger King pled guilty to sale of cocaine a nd other cr

imes. In 2014, King filed a “

Motion to Vacate Ill egal Sent ence and V oid Judgm ent Unde r OCGA § 17-9-4.”

In the m

otion, King argued th at his convi ctions should be set asid e because the state produced no evidence of any cocaine a t his guilty p lea hear

ing. The trial court dism

issed the m

otion, and King appeals. We, however , lack j urisdiction

. A direct appeal lies from an order denyin g or dism

issing a m

otion to vaca

te a void sentence only if the defendant raises a colorable claim that the sen tence is, in fact, void or illegal. See Harper v. State , 2 86 Ga. 21 6, n.1 (686 SE2d 786) (2009); Burg v. State , 297 Ga. App. 118, 119 (676 SE2d 465) (2009) . A sent ence is voi donly when the trial court imposes punishment that the law does not allow. See Jordan v. State , 253 Ga. App. 510, 511 (1) (559 SE2d 528) (2002). Here, King does n otassert that the trial

court im posed a sent ence the l aw does not allow. Instead, he seeks to challenge his underly

ing convicti ons. The

Supreme Court ha s made clear, however, that a motion seeking to ch allenge a n allegedly

invalid or v oid judgm ent of conviction

“is no t one of the established procedures for challenging the validity of a judgm ent in a criminal case.” Roberts v . State , 286 Ga. 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010). BecauseKing is not a

uthorized to collater

ally a ttack his convict ion in this manner, his appeal is hereby DISMISSED. See id. ; see also Harper , supra; Matherlee v. State , 303 Ga. App. 765 (694 SE2d 665) (2010).
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Offi

ce, Atlant a,_______________

___ I certify that th e above is a t rue extract f

rom the minutes of the Court

of Appeals

of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said cou rt hereto aff

ixed the day and year last above writt

en.

, Clerk. 07/24/2014 July 24, 2014
# L_2009088EN.01014901.xml

| 31.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 88/149 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 88/149

---

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

of 22 April 2008

on the closure of the accounts of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (formerly the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia) for the financial year 2006

(2009/210/EC)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights for the financial year 2006 (1),

having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the final annual accounts of the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (formerly the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia) for the financial year 2006, together with the Agency's replies (2),

having regard to the Council's recommendation of 12 February 2008 (5843/2008 — C6-0084/2008),

having regard to the EC Treaty, and in particular Article 276 thereof,

having regard to the Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 168/2007 of 15 February 2007 establishing a European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (4), and in particular Article 21 thereof,

having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (5), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

having regard to Rule 71 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0113/2008),

| 1. | Notes that the final annual accounts of the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (formerly the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia) are as annexed to the Court of Auditors' report; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (formerly the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia) for the financial year 2006; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Instructs its President to forward this Decision to the Director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series). |
| --- | --- |

3.

The President

Hans-Gert PÖTTERING

The Secretary-General

Harald RØMER

---

(1)  
  OJ C 261, 31.10.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 309, 19.12.2007, p. 6.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

3

(4)  
  OJ L 53, 22.2.2007, p. 1.

4

(5)  
  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.

5

---
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Mycology and Nematology Genetic Diversity and Biology Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Search Collections
                        U.S. National Fungus Collections
                                    USDA Nematode CollectionSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Mycology and Nematology Genetic Diversity and Biology Laboratory Docs







Mycology and Nematology Genetic Diversity and Biology Laboratory: Beltsville, MDheadline bar **The US Nematode Collection Search site is now available here.** **We thank you for your patience and apologize for the delays in making the site available again. If you have any comments or suggestions, please direct them to Dr. Lisa Castlebury or Dr. Zafar Handoo.** **The US National Fungus Collections Fungal Databases search site is now available here.  If you need assistance using our new site, please reach out to Shannon Dominick, Lisa Castlebury, or the HebariumBPI email address. Again, we thank you for your patience and apologize for the inconvenience associated with our site being down.** **Specimens contained within our collection may be searched at MycoPortal.** **A snapshot of our fungus-host database can be downloaded here.** **You can find contact information and other resources here.**


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
|                                 | Percentage Ownership | Country ofIncorporation |
|--------------------------------------|----------------------|-------------------------|
| Wholly Owned Subsidiaries:           |                 |                    |
|                                 |                 |                    |
| TORM Singapore Pte. Ltd.             | 100%                 | Singapore               |
| TT Shipowning K/S                    | 100%                 | Denmark                 |
| TORM Norge AS                        | 100%                 | Norway                  |
| Torghatten & TORM Shipowning ApS | 100%                 | Denmark                 |
| TORM USA LLC                         | 100%                 | Delaware                |
| Tiber Shipping LLC                   | 100%                 | Marshall Islands        |
| Long Range 1 A/S                     | 100%                 | Denmark                 |
| OMI Marine Service Ltd.              | 100%                 | Delaware                |
| Medium Range A/S                     | 100%                 | Denmark                 |
| OMI Holding Ltd.                     | 100%                 | Mauritius               |
| LR1 Management K/S                   | 100%                 | Denmark                 |
| TORM Shipping India Private Limited  | 100%                 | India                   |
| MR Management K/S                    | 100%                 | Denmark                 |
| OMI Crewing Service Ltd.             | 100%                 | Bermuda                 |
|                                 |                 |                    |
| Jointly Controlled Entities          |                 |                    |
|                                 |                 |                    |
| Long Range 2 A/S                     | 50%                  | Denmark                 |
| Ugland & TORM Shipowning ApS     | 50%                  | Denmark                 |
| LR2 Management K/S                   | 50%                  | Denmark                 |
| FR8 Holdings Pte. Ltd.               | 50%                  | Singapore               |
| UT Shipowning K/S                    | 50%                  | Denmark                 |
| TORM SHIPPING (PHILS.) INC.          | 25%                  | Philippines             |
EXHIBIT 32.1

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of The Newkirk Master
Limited Partnership; (the "Registrant") for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Michael L. Ashner, Chief Executive Officer of the Manager of
the Registrant's General Partner, 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; and

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


By: /s/ Michael L.Ashner
    ----------------------------------------
Name: Michael L. Ashner
      --------------------------------------
      Chief Executive Officer of the Manager
        of the Registrant's General Partner

Date: July 19, 2005
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Bob Bennett a/k/a Robert S. Bennett

Appellate case number: 01-14-00136-CV

Trial court case number: 759593

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County

On February 12, 2014, relator, Bob Bennett a/k/a Robert S. Bennett, filed a petition for 

writ of mandamus. It is ordered that the real party in interest respond to the petition for writ of 

mandamus by Friday, February 14, 2014 at 12:00pm.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn Keyes

X Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 13, 3014
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ESTEBAN HERNANDEZ-GOMEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-74060

Agency No. A088-741-142

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 25, 2014** 

Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Esteban Hernandez-Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

JUN 30 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the factual

findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the

petition for review. 

The record does not compel the conclusion that Hernandez-Gomez’s

untimely asylum application is excused by changed or extraordinary

circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Ramadan v. Gonzales,

479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).

With respect to withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the

agency’s finding that Hernandez-Gomez failed to establish a nexus between any

harm he fears and a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016

(9th Cir. 2010); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.

2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central

reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). 

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of

Hernandez-Gomez’s CAT claim because he failed to show it is more likely than

not that he would be tortured if returned to Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d

829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 12-74060
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
I, James P. Waters, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of The HillmanCompanies, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrantand we have:
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, 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, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: 3/26/04 /s/ James P. Waters  James P. Waters Chief Financial Officer