alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Robert J. Hughes, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[943 NYS2d 786]-

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1969. He maintained an office for the practice of law in Florida, where he was admitted to the bar in 1979.

By order dated December 22, 2011, the Supreme Court of Florida disbarred respondent after he had defaulted on charges that he engaged in professional misconduct, which included failing to maintain client communications, engaging in conflicts of interest, knowingly making false statements of material fact, knowingly violating the rules of professional conduct, engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, and failing to cooperate with the Florida disciplinary authorities.

As a result of the discipline imposed in Florida, petitioner moves for an order imposing discipline pursuant to this Court’s rules *(see*22 NYCRR 806.19). Respondent has not replied to the motion. We grant petitioner’s motion and further conclude that, under the circumstances presented and in the interest of justice, respondent should be disbarred in this state.

Peters, P.J., Rose, Kavanagh, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law of the State of New York, effective immediately; and it is further ordered that respondent is commanded to desist and refrain *1503from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and respondent is hereby forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority or give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of disbarred attorneys *(see*22 NYCRR 806.9).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Harden, Appellant.

Judgment, Suprei~ne Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.), rendered on January 16, 1984, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur&emdash;Sandler, J. P., Carro, Asch, Fein and Lynch, JJ.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, Hani Zabaneh, President, Secretary, Treasurer and director of Lamped Less Lethal Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)            the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Lamperd Less Lethal Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004 (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 Lamperd Less Lethal Inc.

Dated: April 6, 2005
| /s/ Hani Zabaneh |
|------------------|

Hani Zabaneh

President, Secretary, Treasurer and Director 

(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 99.2


                              COMMUNITY BANKS, INC.


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Community Banks, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period  ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Donald F. Holt,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, 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 Company.

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



/s/  Donald F. Holt
-------------------
Chief Financial Officer
May 15, 2003
# C_2019155EN.01002002.xml

| 6.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 24 January 2019 — Repsol Petróleo, S.A. v Administración del Estado

(Case C-44/19)

(2019/C 155/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Repsol Petróleo, S.A.

Respondent: Administración del Estado

Question referred

Must Article 21(3) of Directive 2003/96 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it permits the self-consumption of energy products within the curtilage of the producer to be made subject to the excise duty on mineral oils in the proportion in which non-energy products are obtained?

Or, on the contrary, does the purpose of that provision, which is to exclude from taxation the use of energy products that is deemed necessary for obtaining final energy products, preclude the taxation of that self-consumption in so far as it results in the production of other non-energy products, even when such production is residual and occurs inevitably as a result of the production process itself?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 678 

To increase the penalties for economic espionage. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 30, 2011 

Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, and Mr. COONS) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To increase the penalties for economic espionage. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Economic Espionage 

5 Penalty Enhancement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18. 

7 Section 1831(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘15 years’’ and inserting ‘‘20 years’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 678 IS

1 SEC. 3. DIRECTIVE TO SENTENCING COMMISSION. 

2 Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 

3 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing 

4 Commission shall— 

5 (1) review its guidelines and policy relating to 

6 a two-level enhancement for economic espionage; and 

7 (2) as a part of such review consider amending 

8 such guidelines to— 

9 (A) apply the two-level enhancement to the 

10 simple misappropriation of a trade secret; 

11 (B) apply an additional two-level enhance12 ment if the defendant transmits or attempts to 

13 transmit the stolen trade secret outside of the 

14 United States and an additional three-level en15 hancement if the defendant instead commits 

16 economic espionage (i.e., he/she knew or in17 tended that the offense would benefit a foreign 

18 government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign 

19 agent); and 

20 (C) provide when a defendant transmits 

21 trade secrets outside of the United States or 

22 commits economic espionage, that the defend23 ant should face a minimum offense level. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 31.2**I, Bruce W. Busmire, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Noble Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; andd) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date:March 13, 2006/s/ BRUCE W. BUSMIRE
#### Keonakamerah POSTELL, a/k/a Keo Postell, a/k/a Keonakramer Natavious Postell, Petitioner-Appellant, v. McKither BODISON, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-6032.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 4, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 11, 2011.

Keonakamerah Postell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Keonakamerah Postell seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

*834(2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Postell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Petition for Permissive Appeal Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

May 28, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00390-CV

GRACE INSTRUMENT INDUSTRIES, LLC, Appellant

V.

MELDEN SCHMIDT AND OFI TESTING EQUIPMENT, INC., Appellees

On Appeal from the 113th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-33726

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On April 30, 2015, appellant Grace Instrument Industries, LLC filed a 

petition for permissive appeal in this court. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 

§ 51.014 (West 2015); see also Tex. R. App. P. 28.3. In the petition, appellant 

asked this court to review the trial court’s interlocutory order granting summary 

judgment in favor of appellees.
2

Appellant has not provided this court with a written order issued by the trial 

court permitting appellant’s appeal of the interlocutory order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. 

& Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(d); Tex. R. App. P. 28.3(a). Accordingly, we deny 

appellant’s petition for permissive appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, McCally, and Busby.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 of Lease
Equity Appreciation Fund I, L.P.;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 the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Intentionally omitted;4.
    
    The registrants other 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 Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, 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 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 registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrant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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Robert K. MoskovitzName:
    Robert K. MoskovitzTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00255-CR

Ex Parte Tyrone Dwayne Amos

On Appeal from the

332nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-2253-21-F

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 16, 2021
EXHIBIT 23





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement (No. 333-120089) on Form S-8 and Registration Statement (No. 333-157027) on Form S-3 of West Bancorporation, Inc. of our reports dated March 12, 2010, relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting which appear in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of West Bancorporation, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009.





/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP





Des Moines, Iowa


March 12, 2010





25
II 

Calendar No. 279 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 802 

[Report No. 112–117] 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow the storage and conveyance 

of nonproject water at the Norman project in Oklahoma, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 13, 2011 

Mr. INHOFE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

JANUARY 13, 2012 

Reported under authority of the order of the Senate of December 17, 2011, 

by Mr. BINGAMAN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow the storage and conveyance of nonproject water at the Norman 

project in Oklahoma, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lake Thunderbird Ef5 ficient Use Act of 2011’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 802 RS

1 SEC. 2. NORMAN PROJECT, OKLAHOMA. 

2 Public Law 86–529 (74 Stat. 225) is amended by 

3 adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘SEC. 10. LAKE THUNDERBIRD. 

5 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary of the Interior 

6 determines that there is enough excess capacity in the res7 ervoir on the Little River known as ‘Lake Thunderbird’ 

8 that nonproject water can be stored in Lake Thunderbird, 

9 the Secretary of the Interior may, in accordance with the 

10 reclamation laws, amend an existing contract, or enter 

11 into 1 or more new contracts, with the Central Oklahoma 

12 Master Conservancy District for the storage and convey13 ance of nonproject water in Norman project facilities to 

14 augment municipal and industrial supplies for the cities 

15 served by the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy Dis16 trict. 

17 ‘‘(b) COSTS.—If any additional infrastructure is 

18 needed to enable the storage and conveyance of non19 project water in Norman project facilities under sub20 section (a) or any other provision of this Act, the costs 

21 of constructing, operating, and maintaining the infrastruc22 ture shall be the responsibility of the non-Federal entity 

23 contracting with the Secretary of the Interior for storage 

24 and conveyance rights.’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 802 RS

1 SEC. 3. EFFECT. 

2 Nothing in this Act or an amendment made by this 

3 Act authorizes any expansion of the storage capacity of 

4 Lake Thunderbird. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 279 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 802 

[Report No. 112–117] 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow 

other purposes. at the Norman project in Oklahoma, and for the storage and conveyance of nonproject water 

JANUARY 13, 2012 

Reported without amendment 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christina King, Appellant.

Weiss, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Plumadore, J.), rendered March 26,1984, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.

In October 1983, defendant was indicted and charged with criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree based on allegations that she uttered a check from the Akwesasne St. Regis Band Council in the amount of $475 made payable to “Christian King”. After a jury trial, she was convicted as charged and sentenced to a conditional discharge for a three-year period, with restitution in the amount of $789.25. On this appeal, defendant maintains that the verdict was against the weight of the trial evidence. We disagree.

The People offered the testimony of Richard Fountain, proprietor of Fountain’s Tavern, to the effect that defendant entered his establishment on September 2, 1983 and requested that Fountain cash the subject check. Fountain testified that he agreed to do so since defendant was a regular customer and, after witnessing defendant indorse the back of the check, he issued $475 in Canadian funds to her.* Fountain further testified that in a subsequent telephone conversation with defendant, she admitted that she knew who stole the check. In addition, the People produced the purported makers of the subject check, Jerome Cook and Sara David, representatives of the Band Council, who testified that their respective signatures had been forged, that the check had been stolen, that defendant was not employed by the Band Council and that no payment in the amount of $475 had been authorized on her behalf. That defendant denied presenting the check to Fountain and indorsing same created an issue of credibility which the jury resolved *1044in the People’s favor *(People v Martinez,*105 AD2d 873, 874). Based on the foregoing, there is ample basis in the record to sustain the conviction. Moreover, since Fountain actually witnessed defendant’s indorsement, we find no error in the trial court’s denial of defendant’s request for a handwriting expert (County Law § 722-c). Nor do we find any impropriety in the restitution award (Penal Law § 60.27 [1], [5] [a]; § 65.10 [2] [g]).

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.

*

 This represents an amount equivalent to $365.75 in United States currency at the time of the incident in question.