alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(February 7, 1986)

#### In the Matter of John E. Casey, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Third Judicial Department, Petitioner.

—Petitioner Committee on Professional Standards moves to confirm the report of the Referee which sustained two charges of professional misconduct against respondent. Respondent, an attorney admitted to the practice of law by this court in 1954 and who maintained an office in the Village of Cooperstown in Otsego County, is charged with neglect of an estate and failure to cooperate with the Committee in its investigation. Respondent is currently subject to a one-year suspension, effective August 12, 1985, which was imposed by this court for similar misconduct *(Matter of Casey,*111 AD2d 979).

We find the charges of professional misconduct against respondent supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence *(see, Matter of Capoccia,*59 NY2d 549) and therefore grant the Committee’s motion to confirm the Referee’s report sustaining the charges of neglect and failure to cooperate with the Committee’s investigation.

We further find that respondent’s professional misconduct warrants an extension of his current suspension for an additional three months *(see, e.g., Matter of Ozzi,*110 AD2d 77). First, his neglect of the estate was lengthy and inexcusable. Respondent’s neglect delayed distribution of a relatively simple estate for over 13 years. The estate, for which the decedent had apparently executed a will, consisted of little more than the decedent’s personal effects, a small bank account, and a deposit with a Veteran’s Administration Hospital. Second, respondent’s neglect resulted in harm to the potential distributees or beneficiaries by delaying for an inordinate period of time receipt of their respective shares of the estate. Respondent’s neglect also exposed the estate to the risk of loss by allowing estate moneys to be placed in a nonestate account and almost caused decedent’s bank account to be designated abandoned. Third, we take note of the fact that respondent has a long history of neglect and failure to cooperate with the Committee *(see, e.g., Matter of Casey,*111 AD2d 979, *supra).*

Motion to confirm Referee’s report granted; respondent suspended for an additional period of three months, effective August 12, 1986, and until further order of this court. Mahoney, P.J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.
#### THE PERTH AMBOY DRY DOCK CO., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. EMPIRE PETROLEUM COMPANY, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

September 19, 1960.

*Messrs. Clapp é Eisenberg*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Wilentz, Goldman, Spitzer & Sills*and *Mr. Elias A. Kanter*for the respondent.

Denied.
Exhibit 4.1


 


 


Advisors Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


July 27, 2021


 


Advisors Disciplined Trust 2082


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


240 Greenwich Street, 22W Floor


New York, NY 10286


 


Re:   Advisors Disciplined Trust 2082 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined the Registration
Statement File No. 333-255279 for the above captioned Fund. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement of the references
to Advisors Asset Management, Inc. as evaluator.


You are hereby authorized
to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 





	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	Advisors Asset Management, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By	/s/ ALEX R. MEITZNER
	 	 	Alex R. Meitzner
	 	 	Senior Vice President
ae

ser (06977)

United States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois

(9)

Name of Assigned Jud 5 Sitting Judge if OF
oe Magistrate Judge James B. Moran than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 4394 DATE 6/2/2003
CASE MCI WorldCom Network etc. Vs. Atlas Excavating, Inc.
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
@) a Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due.
(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on___ set for
(5) Bo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) im Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—_ssetfor at
(7) a Trial[set for/re-set for] on___— at
~) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto___at
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP4I(a\(2).
(10) Ml [Other docketentry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Defendant seeks to take far more than

ten depositions. For now, its motion is denied. The motion to compel is granted.

(il)

(For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required,

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

wv | Docketing to mail notices,

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom
WAH deputy’s
initials

No notices required, advised in open court,

number of notices

tei deesived,
sak Gldrkls OEE T

in

JUN 3 2003

date docketed

cu?
docketing Kepuly initials

date mailed notice

mailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS POCKETED

EASTERN DIVISION UN

MCI WORLDCOM NETWORK SERVICES, )
INC, )
)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) No. 02 C 4394

)

ATLAS EXCAVATING, INC., )
)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant seeks to take far more than ten depositions. For now, its motion is denied.
Perhaps more than ten will ultimately be necessary, but initial depositions may well
demonstrate that many of the persons defendant seeks to depose know far less than those
deposed and can add nothing to what defendant learns, and plaintiff may well disclaim any
interest in having them appear at trial. Until discovery is more advanced we cannot know if
more than ten depositions are appropriate and, if so, how many and who,

The motion to compel is granted. Defendant does not contend that its response would
be overly burdensome, only that much of the information is irrelevant. That may well be so,

but that cannot be determined without knowing what it is.

JAMES B. MORAN

Senior Judge, U. S. District Court
fe aX, 2003.

3 2003
Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(released the week prior to May 21, 2019)

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of 

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES:

A-18-831 In re Guardianship of Castonguay

A-18-923 Holtzen v. T.L.W. Enterprises of York

The above-listed memorandum opinions can be viewed online through the 

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebraska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

https://www.nebraska.gov/courts/sccales/.
(May 10, 1985)

#### In the Matter of S. Simpson Gray, a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Motion by respondent to stay the proceeding to punish the respondent for his alleged professional misconduct, pending the outcome and determination of the criminal proceeding pending in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entitled *People v Gray,*under indictment No. 85-00240.

Motion denied. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano, Gibbons and Thompson, JJ., concur.
#### Daniel A. Breidenstein, Respondent, v Ludlow Corp., Appellant.

Order, insofar as appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and defendant’s motion granted to dismiss plaintiffs first cause of action. Memorandum: The court erred in failing to grant summary judgment to defendant dismissing plaintiff’s negligence claim against it. From approximately 1965 to 1976 defendant was the owner of a mill machine manufactured by Thropp Corporation. When used by defendant, it was equipped with a safety device subjected to weekly inspection. It was dismantled and sold "as is” to Eemco Machines, Inc., who reconstructed it according to the specifications of Plaslok Corporation. Plaintiff, an employee of Plaslok, was allegedly injured while operating the machine. Plaintiff contended that defendant was negligent in failing to warn Eemco of the danger of using the machine without the safety device in use during its period of ownership. That argument is without merit. We find as a matter of law that defendant, a casual seller, cannot be held liable given the sale and shipment of only certain parts of the dismantled machine and the modification by Eemco, which involved the entire rebuilding of the machine *(cf. Robinson v Reed-Prentice Div.,*49 NY2d 471, 480-481; *Hansen v Honda Motor Co.,*104 AD2d 850). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Pine, JJ.
Exhibit 12.1


                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Herbjorn Hansson, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Nordic  American  Tanker
     Shipping Limited;

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.   Based on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
     information  included  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 periods presented in this report;

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)) 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)  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

     (c)  Disclosed  in this  report  any  change in the  registrant'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  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.

Date: June 30, 2005

/s/ Herbjorn Hansson
------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Consumer Product Safety Commission

          - [CPSC Docket No. 21-2]

# AGENCY:

Consumer Product Safety Commission.

# ACTION:

Publication of a Complaint under the Consumer Product Safety Act.

# SUMMARY:

                        Under provisions of its Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceeding, the Consumer Product Safety Commission must publish in the                         **Federal Register**                         Complaints which it issues. Published below is a Complaint: In the matter of Amazon.com.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alberta E. Mills, Secretary, Division of the Secretariat, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7479 (Office) or 240-863-8938 (cell).

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Commission voted 3-1 to authorize issuance of this Complaint. Acting Chairman Adler, Commissioners Kaye and Feldman voted to authorize issuance of the Complaint. Commissioner Baiocco voted to not authorize issuance of the Complaint. The text of the Complaint appears below.

Dated: July 15, 2021.

Alberta E. Mills,

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.

      ( print page 38451)          ( print page 38452)          ( print page 38453)          ( print page 38454)          ( print page 38455)          ( print page 38456)          ( print page 38457)          ( print page 38458)          ( print page 38459)          ( print page 38460)          ( print page 38461)          ( print page 38462)          ( print page 38463)          ( print page 38464)          ( print page 38465)          ( print page 38466)          ( print page 38467)          ( print page 38468)          ( print page 38469)          ( print page 38470)          ( print page 38471)    

BILLING CODE 6355-01-P

[FR Doc. 2021-15440 Filed 7-20-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Entrust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |        |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 6, 2006 |  |        |  | /s/ F. William Conner  
|                       |  | Name:  |  | F. William Conner      
|                       |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           6,336
<SECURITIES>                                    10,345
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,741
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,465
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,838
<PP&E>                                           2,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,582
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,291
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,387
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,096)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,582
<SALES>                                         39,124
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,124
<CGS>                                           10,532
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,010
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (682)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  13
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,251
<INCOME-TAX>                                       349
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,902
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,902
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

I, Kenneth J. Saunders, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
except for the failure to timely file the report, the Quarterly Report of Peregrine Systems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Peregrine Systems, Inc.

Date:
February 15, 2005

| |  | /s/KENNETH J. SAUNDERSKenneth J. Saunders
Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Peregrine Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Peregrine Systems, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

---



QuickLinks
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert Lee GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50824

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 15, 2011.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Alexander Lee Calhoun, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Robert Lee Green appeals the 18-month prison sentence he received upon the revocation of his supervised release. He argues that the district court failed to provide sufficient reasons for the above-guidelines sentence. He did not object in the district court; thus, our review is for plain error only. *See United States v. Whitelaw,*580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir.2009).

Although the district court’s failure to provide specific reasons for the above-guidelines sentence is a clear, obvious error, *see id.*at 261-62, Green has not shown reversible plain error because he has not established that this error affects his substantial rights or the public reputation of the proceedings. *See Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 129 S.Ct. 1428, 1429, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). Green has not asserted, much less shown, how a more thorough explanation would have resulted in a shorter sentence, and there is no suggestion in the record that the district court considered any improper factor or would impose a different sentence on remand. *Whitelaw,*580 F.3d at 261-62, 264. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<PAGE>   1
                            [NATIONSBANK LETTERHEAD]
                                                                 EXHIBIT (10)-19

March 27, 1998



To:   MedPartners, Inc.

From: NationsBank, N.A., as Agent

Re:   Consent to waiver of Section 8.1 and Section 8.4(h)(1) of the Credit
      Agreement



Dear MedPartners, Inc.:

Effective March 27, 1998, the Required Lenders consented to the extension of the
waiver of Section 8.1 and 8.4 (h)(1) of the Credit Agreement through
May 29, 1998.

Thank you again for all your efforts.


Regards,


/s/ William D. Duke
---------------------
William D. Duke
Vice President


cc:   P. Clemens, MedPartners, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.0.3

Eastern Division

Carmen Feliciano, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:03−cv−01768

Honorable James B. Zagel

County of Cook, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, June 23, 2010:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable James B. Zagel:Motion for extension of time to

file pretrial order [247] is granted. Pretrial Order now due by 9/1/2010.Mailed notice(drw,

)

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case 1:03-cv-01768 Document 249 Filed 06/23/10 Page 1 of 1
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00569

- CR
Yurisdanyer Garcia

- Sanchez v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 299th District Court of Travis County , Texas Trial Cause No. D

- 1

- DC

- 16

- 301140

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having consi dered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. August 23, 2018