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

[946 NYS2d 910]

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department in 2003. He maintained an office for the practice of law in the City of Rochester, Monroe County.

Respondent has not answered a petition of charges or opposed petitioner’s subsequent motion for a default judgment, both of which were personally served on him. Under the circumstances, respondent is deemed to have admitted the charges and petitioner’s motion for a default judgment is granted *(see*
      *1344
      *e.g. Matter of Phillips,*284 AD2d 897 [2001]). Further, based on such admission and the proof submitted by petitioner, we find respondent guilty of the charged misconduct.

In violation of the attorney disciplinary rules* as charged and specified in the petition, respondent diverted over $44,000 in payments from his law firm’s clients for his own use *(see*former Code of Professional Responsibility DR 9-102 [c] [1], [3], [4] [22 NYCRR 1200.46 (c) (1), (3), (4)]; Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.15 [c] [1], [3], [4]); neglected client matters *(see*former Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-101 [a] [3] [22 NYCRR 1200.30 (a) (3)]; Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.3 [b]); engaged in dishonest, fraudulent or deceitful conduct *(see*former Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 [a] [4] [22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (4)]; Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [c]); and failed to cooperate with petitioner *(see*Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [d]).

Having considered the factors and circumstances presented, and in order to protect the public, deter similar misconduct and preserve the reputation of the bar, we conclude that respondent should be disbarred.

Rose, J.P., Spain, Kavanagh, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion for a default judgment is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is found guilty of the professional misconduct set forth in the petition; 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 from 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 alleged misconduct occurred prior to and after the April 1, 2009 enactment of the Rules of Professional Conduct with the exception of the charge of failing to cooperate with petitioner, which took place in 2010.
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

# Courtroom Decorum

The dignity of the court is to be respected and maintained at all times.

Attire for counsel and spectators should be restrained and appropriate to the dignity of a court of the United States.

Most courtroom proceedings are recorded either by an official court reporter or by an electronic digital recording system; counsel should be aware that private conversations among individuals at the counsel tables may be picked up by the recording system through the courtroom microphones.

Court Security Officers and court staff are authorized to open and inspect any item carried into a courtroom.

Coatracks in the hallways outside the courtrooms are available.

No recording, broadcasting, or photography is permitted.

No food or drink may be brought into the courtrooms; water is provided at counsel tables.

Repeated entrances and departures are to be avoided.

Doorways and passageways should be kept clear at all times.

No electronic device may be used in any courtroom without advance permission from the presiding judge or special master.

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building • 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439 • 202-357-6400
Document

Exhibit 10.1








Exhibit 10.1








Exhibit 10.1








Exhibit 10.1








Exhibit 10.1








Exhibit 10.1








Exhibit 10.1








Exhibit 10.1








Exhibit 10.1








Exhibit 10.1








Exhibit 10.1








Exhibit 10.1








Exhibit 10.1








Exhibit 10.1








Exhibit 10.1








Exhibit 10.1








Exhibit 10.1








Exhibit 10.1








Exhibit 10.1
#### LEES v. HAYDEN et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Appeal from circuit court, New York county.

Action by David J. Lees, as receiver of the property and assets of Daniel H. Wickham, George S. Wickham, and Samuel E. Turner, against Eldin B. Hayden and Anna Hayden. From a judgment entered on a verdict directed by the court in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and FOLLETT and PARKER, ,TJ.

Geo. D. Beattys, for appellants.

W. J. Townsend, for respondent.

VAN BRUNT, P. J.

For the reasons assigned in the opinion in the case of Lees v. Hayden (decided herewith) 29 N. Y. Supp. 179, the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

PARKER, J., concurs. FOLLETT, J., concurs in result
#### WHITE, Respondent, v. NEW YORK, L. E. & W. R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Action by Mary M. White, administratrix, etc., against the New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company.

Argued before HARDIN, P. J., and MARTIN and MERWIN, JJ.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM RAINTREE'S
UNAUDITED  CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR THE 8 MOS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1999  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO  SUCH  CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   8-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            FEB-01-1999 <F1>
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          6,703
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  15,614
<ALLOWANCES>                                    3,666
<INVENTORY>                                     1,688
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               21,819
<PP&E>                                         54,238
<DEPRECIATION>                                  8,867
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                123,984
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          61,303
<BONDS>                                        77,356
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            8
<OTHER-SE>                                      9,545
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  123,984
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               84,342
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  73,906
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               12,971
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                2,102
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              5,966
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,603)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,603)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,603)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0

<FN>
<F1> RainTree Healthcare Corporation emerged from Chapter 11 on January 31, 1999
     and adopted fresh start  reporting in accordance with Statement of Position
     90-7. Accordingly, the Company's  post-reorganization  financial statements
     have not been prepared on a consistent  basis with such  pre-reorganization
     financial  statements  and are not  comparable in all respects to financial
     statements prior to reorganization.
</FN>


</TABLE>
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-83,633-02

EX P ARTE JES US MANUEL NAVA RRETTE, Ap plicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. A-36,468-B IN THE 70TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM ECTOR COUNTY
Per curiam . Y E A R Y , J., fi led a concurring opin ion in wh ich S L A U G H T E R , J., joined. O R D E R Applicant was convicted of two cou n ts o f a g g r a

v a te d s e x ual assault sentenc ed to seventy -five y ear s’ imprisonment, to run concur rently
. The Eleventh Court of Appea ls aff irmed his convictions. Navarrette v. State , No. 11-11-00331- CR (Tex. App.—Eastland, Fe b. 21, 2014) (not desig nated for publication). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cle rk for

war ded it to this C ourt. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. On J uly 22, 2021, the trial court enter ed an order desig nating issues. T h e d i s t ri ct cler k proper ly forwa

rded this application to this Court und er T ex as Rule of Appellate Procedur e 73.4(b)( 5). Howeve r, the application was forwa rded befor e the trial court made finding s of fac t and
co n cl u s i o n s of law. We rema nd this application to the trial court to complete its evidentia ryinvestiga tion and make f indings of f

act a nd conclusions of law
. T h e t rial court shall make findings of fac t and conclusions of l aw within ninety day s from the date of this order
. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motions, objections , proposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: Mar ch 9, 2022 Do not publish
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 20809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9595]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP95-408-037]


Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Filing

April 12, 2000.
    Take notice that on April 3, 2000, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia) filed to report on the sharing with its 
customers of a portion of the profits from the sale of certain base gas 
as provided in Columbia's Docket No. RP95-408 rate case settlement. 
(See Stipulation II, Article IV, Sections A through E, in Docket No. 
RP95-408 approved at Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 79 FERC para. 
61,044 (1997)).
    Columbia states that the sales of base gas have generated 
additional profits of $12,454,242 (above a $21.4 million threshold) 
requiring a sharing of 10 percent of the excess profits with customers 
and $58,577 (above a $41.5 million threshold) requiring a sharing of 50 
percent of the excess profits with customers in accordance with 
Stipulation II, Article IV, Section C. Consequently, $1,292,013, 
inclusive of interest, has been allocated to affected customers and 
credited to their April invoices, which credits remain subject to 
Commission acceptance of this filing.
    Columbia states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all 
affected customers and state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sec. 385.211 of the 
Commission's rules and regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before April 19, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-9595 Filed 4-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EGL, INC.







Exhibit 32



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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of EGL, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

Date:  August 9, 2005

By:

/s/ James R. Crane

_____________________

James R. Crane

Chief Executive Officer

Date:  August 9, 2005

By:

/s/ Elijio V. Serrano

_____________________

Elijio V. Serrano

Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to EGL, Inc. and will be retained by EGL, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2021516EN.01000101.xml

| 21.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 516/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 516/1

---

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products on 20 December 2021

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1))

(2021/C 516/01)

| — | Issuing of a marketing authorisation (Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council): Accepted













  Date of the decision | Name of the medicinal product | INN (International Non-Proprietary Name) | Holder of the marketing authorisation | Number of the entry in the Community Register | Pharmaceutical form | ATC code (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Code) | Date of notification |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 20.12.2021 | Nuvaxovid | COVID-19 Vaccine (recombinant, adjuvanted) | Novavax CZ, a.s. |
| Bohumil 138, 281 63 Jevany, Česká republika |

—

Issuing of a marketing authorisation (Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council): Accepted

Date of the decision

Name of the medicinal product

INN (International Non-Proprietary Name)

Holder of the marketing authorisation

Number of the entry in the Community Register

Pharmaceutical form

ATC code (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Code)

Date of notification

20.12.2021

Nuvaxovid

COVID-19 Vaccine (recombinant, adjuvanted)

Novavax CZ, a.s.

Bohumil 138, 281 63 Jevany, Česká republika

EU/1/21/1618

dispersion for injection

J07BX03

20.12.2021

Anyone wishing to consult the public assessment report on the medicinal products in question and the decisions relating thereto is invited to contact:

| European Medicines Agency |
| --- |
| Domenico Scarlattilaan 6 |
| 1083 HS Amsterdam |
| NETHERLANDS |

European Medicines Agency

Domenico Scarlattilaan 6

1083 HS Amsterdam

NETHERLANDS

---

(1)  OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

---
Order entered July 25, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01511-CR

ANTHONY SHANE KILLEBREW, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 416-81884-2012

ORDER

The Court DENIES appellant’s July 23, 2014 motion for extension of time to file 

appellant’s brief as moot. The appellant brief filed pursuant to the Court’s July 9, 2014 order is 

deemed timely filed.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
REQUESTING A PAYMENT PLAN

TIME LINE: Within 30 days of your receipt of our preliminary assessment letter

If you are unable to pay the penalty in full, you can contact the collection office at 

(510) 437-3644 to discuss a payment plan. 

Please note office hours for the collection office are on Pacific Standard Time, or 

Pacific Daylight Savings Time.
Exhibit 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                       REMINGTON PRODUCTS COMPANY, L.L.C.

     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE  PRESENTS,  that each person whose name appears below
constitutes and appoints Alexander R. Castaldi, Joel K. Bedol and Kris J. Kelley
and each of them, his true and lawful  attorneys-in-fact  and agents,  with full
power of substitution and resubstitution,  for and in his name, place and stead,
in any and all capacities  which such person serves or may serve with respect to
Remington  Products  Company,  L.L.C.  and Remington  Capital Corp., to sign the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Remington  Products Company,  L.L.C. and Remington
Capital  Corp.  for the fiscal  year ended  December  31,  1999,  and any or all
amendments  to such  Annual  Report,  and to file the  same,  with all  exhibits
thereto,  and other documents in connection  therewith,  with the Securities and
Exchange Commission,  granting unto said  attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each
of them, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite and  necessary to be done in and about the  premises,  as fully to all
intents and  purposes as he might or could do in person,  hereby  ratifying  and
confirming all that said  attorneys-in-fact  and agents or any of them, or their
or his substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

This power of attorney has been signed as of the 30 day of March,  2000,  by the
following persons:

/s/ Neil P. DeFeo                           /s/ Victor K. Kiam, II
-----------------------------------         ------------------------------------
Neil P. DeFeo,                              Victor K. Kiam, II,
Chief Executive Officer, President          Chairman and Director
  and Director


/s/ Victor K. Kiam, III                     /s/ Robert L. Rosner
-----------------------------------         ------------------------------------
Victor K. Kiam, III,                        Robert L. Rosner,
Director                                    Director


/s/ Norman W. Alpert                        /s/ Kevin Mundt
-----------------------------------         ------------------------------------
Norman W. Alpert,                           Kevin Mundt,
Director                                    Director


/s/ Arthur J. Nagle                         /s/ Daniel S. O'Connell
-----------------------------------         ------------------------------------
Arthur J. Nagle,                            Daniel S. O'Connell,
Director                                    Director


/s/ William B. Connell                      /s/ Kris J. Kelley
-----------------------------------         ------------------------------------
William B. Connell,                         Kris J. Kelley,
Director                                    Vice President and Controller


/s/ Alexander R. Castaldi
-----------------------------------
Alexander R. Castaldi,
Executive Vice President, Chief
   Financial and Administrative
   Officer
#### In the Matter of Charles Stewart, Appellant, v David S. Hartnett, as Cortland County District Attorney, et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 26, 2007;

decided April 3, 2007

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
#### Carol Monahan, Respondent, v James Comenale, Appellant.

Memorandum: Plaintiff, a passenger in defendant’s motor boat, was injured when she fell forward as defendant was navigating through a wake created by a passing tour boat. The trial testimony established that defendant’s boat was traveling 10 miles per hour immediately prior to the accident, but the testimony was in conflict regarding whether defendant accelerated or decelerated as he drove his boat through the wake. The jury returned a verdict of no cause for action in favor of defendant and the trial court set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence (CPLR 4404 [a]). That was error.

A verdict should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the preponderance of the evidence in favor of the moving party is so great that the verdict could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence *(Kuncio v Fillmore Hosp.,*117 AD2d 975, 976; *Aiello v Garahan,*91 AD2d 839, 840 *affd*58 NY2d 1078). That is not *1032the case here because if the jury credited defendant’s testimony, defendant was not negligent according to plaintiffs own expert. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, McLaughlin, J. — set aside verdict.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.