alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Alan David Harris, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Second Department,

February 17, 1987

*127APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Frank A. Finnerty, Jr. (Grace D. Moran*of counsel), for petitioner.

*Gustave H. Newman*for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice as an attorney by the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, on June 18, 1962. In this proceeding, the petitioner moves to confirm in part and disaffirm in part the report of the Special Referee, and the respondent submits an affidavit in opposition to that part of the petitioner’s motion which seeks to disaffirm the Referee’s findings that charges one, three, five, seven and eight were not sustained.

In this proceeding the respondent was charged with eight allegations of professional misconduct. The Special Referee sustained only charges two, four and six. The respondent was charged with (1) converting clients’ funds to his own use and benefit, (2) failing to maintain proper escrow accounts and commingling moneys belonging to clients, (3) improperly entering into a business relationship with a client based on a misrepresentation to the client, (4) improperly attempting to limit his liability to a client by causing the client to execute a general release as condition for the return of the client’s moneys, (5) neglecting his duties and obligations as an attorney in a divorce action, (6) refusing to return a file to a client entitled to the file by requiring the client to sign a letter prepared by the respondent which stated that the services rendered by the respondent were "reasonable and fair” and the cost of said services was "satisfactory”, (7) charging an excessive legal fee and misrepresenting to the client the amount of time and services performed, and (8) engaging in improper, untruthful and potentially misleading advertising of his legal services.

After reviewing all of the evidence, we disagree with the Special Referee’s failure to sustain charges one, three, five, seven and eight. We find as to these five charges that the credible evidence, including the respondent’s own admissions, *128establish his guilt of these charges and find the respondent guilty of all eight charges of professional misconduct described above. The respondent argued that there was no intent to misappropriate funds and that the clients eventually received all their money. These arguments do not negate the fact that his checking account was overdrawn at a time when the clients’ funds should have remained intact. This conversion, in and of itself, constitutes grounds for the imposition of the severest possible sanction. The petitioner’s motion is granted.

The respondent is adjudged guilty of serious professional misconduct. He is therefore disbarred and it is directed that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law forthwith.

Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson, Bracken and Eiber, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                          SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF
                           PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Deltagen, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, I, William Matthews,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Deltagen, Inc., hereby certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

     (1) such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Deltagen, Inc. for the quarter
     ended June 30, 2002, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
     Deltagen, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     Deltagen, Inc.

August 13, 2002

                                                    /s/ William Matthews
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    William Matthews
                                                    Chairman and Chief Executive
                                                    Officer
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
 Plant Physiology and Genetics Research: Maricopa, AZ
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Units
                        Main Page - ALARC
                                    Pest Management and Biocontrol Unit
                                    Water Management and Conservation Unit
                                    Western Regional Biomass Research Center
                    About UsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Maricopa, Arizona U.S. Arid Land Agricultural Research Center Plant Physiology and Genetics Research People & Locations







Julia  Stiles
                        Plant Physiology and Genetics Research

                        




                        
                        Research Agronomist
                        Phone: (520) 316-6300
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
*Rehearing Denied October 2, 2006:*

#### Michigan Chiropractic Council v Commissioner of the Office of Financial and Insurance Service,

No. 126530.

Reported at 475 Mich 363.

Weaver and Markman, JJ. We would grant rehearing.
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. AD21-8-00]

Take notice that on October 14, 2021, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will convene a staff-led technical conference via webcast as part of a reassessment of the Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) requirements. A supplemental notice will be issued prior to the conference with further details regarding the agenda, meeting registration information, and electronic log-in information.

The purpose of this technical conference is to provide a forum for Commission staff, filers, and data users to discuss potential changes to the current EQR data fields. This technical conference is the third in a series of conferences related to a reassessment of the EQR requirements.

                    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to                     *accessibility@ferc.gov*                     or call toll free 1-866-208-3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations.                

                    For more information about the EQR technical conference, please contact Jeff Sanders of the Commission's Office of Enforcement at (202) 502-6455, or send an email to                     *EQR@ferc.gov.*                     Additional information will also be provided on the EQR web page.                

Dated: August 12, 2021.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-17698 Filed 8-17-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
EXHIBIT 21

 

ITRONICS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES

 

                                        STATE OF             NAMESUNDER WHICH

NAME                                  INCORPORATION            THEYDO BUSINESS

Whitney & Whitney, Inc.                  Nevada                   Same

Itronics Metallurgical, Inc              Nevada                   Same

Itronics California, Inc.                California               Same

Nevada Hydrometallurgical Project

(A Partnership)                          Nevada                   Same

American Hydromet(A Joint Venture)         Nevada                   Same

80

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Jay V. BALL, et al., Defendants.

Crim. A. No. 7045.

United States District Court, E. D. Tennessee, Northeastern Division.

May 27, 1981.

Guy W. Blackwell, Asst. U. S. Atty., Greeneville, Tenn., for plaintiff.

W. Gordon Ball, Newport, Tenn., and A. Benjamin Strand, Jr., Dandridge, Tenn., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND FINDINGS

NEESE, District Judge.

Concomitantly with the trial of *United States of America,*plaintiff, *v. Jay Ball,*defendant, no. CR-2-81-9, this District on May 18-22, 1981, inclusive, after the probationer Mr. Jay V. Ball (aka Jay Ball) had been given on April 9, 1981 notice of the alleged violations of his probation, a disclosure of the evidence against him, an opportunity to appear and be heard and to present evidence in his own behalf, the opportunity to question witnesses against him, and the opportunity to show any cause he might have as to why his probation should not be revoked ,and a sentence imposed on count one of the indictment of October 25, 1968 against him herein, a hearing on the revocation of his probation of April 15,1969 was held. Rule 32.1(a)(2), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (effective December 1, 1980). Probable cause to hold the probationer for such hearing, Rule 32.1(a)(1), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, had been found after a preliminary hearing. See report and recommendation of April 27, 1981 of a magistrate herein.

*940From the evidence adduced as indicated, the Court hereby FINDS, on the basis of the probationer’s original offense in the period August 14-30, 1968, inclusive, and his intervening conduct:

1. that the probationer Mr. Jay V. Ball violated the condition of his probation of April 15, 1969 herein “ * * * that he obey all * * * federal laws * * by *inter alia:*

(a) selling a stolen 1978-model Ford pickup truck on March 12, 1980, and

(b) selling another stolen 1978-model Ford pickup truck on March 20, 1978, each of which had moved from Asheville, North Carolina, to Cocke County, Tennessee, at respective times when he knew each such motor vehicle had been stolen; and,

2. that it could unduly depreciate the seriousness of such violations if his probation is not revoked. Accordingly, the probation of Mr. Jay V. Ball of April 15, 1969 hereby is

REVOKED.

The Court further hereby FINDS:

3. that the offender is in need of additional correctional treatment which can be provided most effectively if he is confined; and

4. that the confinement of the defendant Mr. Jay V. Ball is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity by the offender.

Additional sentence hereby is ASSIGNED to be imposed at 12:30 o’clock, p. m., Wednesday, July 15, 1981, pending which the defendant will remain on his present bond herein.
msiex101q12020






                             Motorola Solutions, Inc.                2020-2022 Long Range Incentive Plan (LRIP) Terms          As Approved by the Compensation and Leadership Committee                                 On February 13, 2020      Design                                            2020-2022 LRIP     Feature  Performance                        Three years from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2022      Cycle     Eligible                                   Corporate Vice Presidents and above   Population  Performance                                 Relative Total Shareholder Return (TSR)     Criteria                 TSR Defined as:                       Ending stock price                        (Daily average during the final three months of the Performance Cycle)                       + Value of reinvested dividends                      = Total ending value                       – Beginning stock price                       (Daily average during the three months preceding the Performance Cycle)                      = Total value created                       ÷ Beginning share price                        (Daily average during the three months preceding the Performance Cycle)                       = Total shareholder return    Negative                 If the resulting TSR performance for Motorola Solutions is negative, the       TSR                 Committee will have full discretion to reduce the final calculated payout.   Component   Comparator    S&P 500 defined as companies in the S&P 500 at the beginning of the      Group      performance period; must be publically traded on or after July 1, 2021 to be                 included in the TSR percentile calculation at the end of the performance cycle.     Payout                                       Relative TSR Payout Scale      Scale                                   MSI 3-Year TSR                                                             Payout Factor                                   Percentile Rank                                 90th – 100th Percentile         250%                                80th – 89.99th Percentile        200%                                70th – 79.99th Percentile        175%                                60th – 69.99th Percentile        150%                                55th – 59.99th Percentile        110%                                50th – 54.99th Percentile         90%                                45th – 49.99th Percentile         80%                                35th – 44.99th Percentile         50%                                30th – 34.99th Percentile         30%                                  < 30.00th Percentile            0%
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Ornes, Appellant.

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 — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Asch and Wallach, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S. C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Commerce Solutions, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel L. Hefner, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director 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, to my knowledge:





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





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








Date: February 27, 2013

/s/ Daniel L. HefnerDaniel L. HefnerChief Executive Officer, President and Director
SAMANTHA BANKS, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CAROLYN COL VIN, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

3: 14-CV -013 06-HZ 

ORDER 

It is hereby ORDERED that attorney fees in the amount of $4,875.38 shall be awarded to 

Plaintiff pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Attorney fees will be 

paid to Plaintiffs attorney, dependent upon verification that Plaintiff has no debt which qualifies 

for offset against the awarded fees, pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as discussed in 

Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). 

If Plaintiff has no such debt, then the check shall be made out to Plaintiffs attorney and 

mailed to Plaintiffs attorney's office as follows: Merrill Schneider, P.O. Box 14490, Portland, 

OR 97293. If Plaintiff has a debt, then the check for any remaining funds after offset of the debt 

shall be made to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiffs attorney's office at the address stated above. 

DATED this A_ day ofNovember, 2015. 

United States District Court Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-01306-HZ Document 22 Filed 11/16/15 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Dawson, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 874] —

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered May 5, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender whose prior felony conviction was a violent felony, to concurrent terms of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s decision to credit the police account of the incident.

*473We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.E, Andrias, DeGrasse, Richter and Román, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM EXPROFUELS,
INC. UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                          13,575
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  186,086
<ALLOWANCES>                                    60,000
<INVENTORY>                                    335,367
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               490,129
<PP&E>                                         517,522
<DEPRECIATION>                                 266,388
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,384,910
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          341,197
<BONDS>                                        523,344
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     142,066
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,384,910
<SALES>                                        242,458
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               242,721
<CGS>                                          215,557
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  515,286
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,764
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (291,329)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (291,329)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (291,329)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

JEREMY ROBERT MILLER, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

) 

CAROLYN W. COL VIN, Acting Commissioner of) 

Social Security, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

3:14-CV-01668-JO 

JUDGMENT 

Based on the record, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the decision of the 

Commissioner is affirmed and this case is dismissed. 

Dated this:14day of September, 2015. 

1-JUDGMENT 

Case 3:14-cv-01668-JO Document 20 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 1