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

[799 NYS2d 326]

*642Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1998 and maintains an office for the practice of law in Stamford, Connecticut.

By order issued March 15, 2005, the Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of Stamford/Norwalk placed respondent on inactive status because of his incapacity to engage in the practice of law as a result of a disability caused by drug dependency.

Petitioner moves for an order reciprocally disciplining respondent due to his suspension in Connecticut *(see*22 NYCRR 806.19) or, alternatively, suspending respondent by reason of his disability caused by drug dependency *(see*22 NYCRR 806.10 [a]). Petitioner also contends that, consistent with this Court’s broad inherent powers of supervision of the bar, and based upon the order in Connecticut finding respondent incapable of engaging in the practice of law by reason of his disability, respondent may be immediately suspended from the practice of law in New York for an indefinite period, in accordance with *Matter of Apollo*(237 AD2d 731 [1997]). Respondent has not appeared in opposition to petitioner’s motion.

We conclude that it would be incongruous for this Court to allow respondent the continuing privilege of practicing law in this state while, at the same time, he is considered to be incapacitated from practicing law in Connecticut. Under these circumstances, and in the exercise of this Court’s broad inherent powers to supervise the bar, we order respondent’s immediate suspension from the practice of law in this state until further order of this Court *(see Matter of Markel,*296 AD2d 653 [2002]).

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.

Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted on the grounds set forth in this decision; and it is further ordered that respondent is suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period, effective immediately, until further order of this Court; and it is further ordered that, for the period of suspension, 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 forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority; or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice with relation thereto; and it is further ordered that re*643spondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys *(see*22 NYCRR 806.9).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6067
EMORY ALVIN MICHAU, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ARCHIE LEE, Magistrate for Dillon County; JOHN DOE, Clerk of Court; RICHARD ROE, Two, Highway Patrolman for the State of South Carolina, Defendants - Appellees.
No. 97-6068
EMORY ALVIN MICHAU, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT W. KINARD, Mayor of the City of North Charleston; JOHN DOE, Police Officer for theCity of North Charleston; PIERRE POE, Magistrate for the City of North Charleston; RICHARD ROE, Court Clerk for City of North Charleston; STEPHEN TOE, Attorney for North Charleston; ANY AND ALL PERSONS, individually and in their official capacities, who were subject to a summons to Court in Case No. 93- CP-10-269, and under the direction of order obtained pursuant to that hearing held on September 23, 1993, Defendants - Appellees.2 Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-663-2-8AK, CA-96-664-2-8AK) Submitted: May 29, 1997 Decided: June 10, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emory Alvin Michau, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaints. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions accepting the magistrate judge's recommendations and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Michau v. Lee , No. CA-96-663-2-8AK (D.S.C. Dec. 10, 1996); Michau v. Kinard , No. CA-96-664-2 -8AK (D.S.C. Dec. 12, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2



TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.



OFFICERS CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



April 14, 2004



In connection with the Quarterly Report of TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 29, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I J. Kernan Crotty, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|                     |  |                                                       
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 14, 2004 |  | /s/ J. Kernan Crotty                                  
|                     |  | J. Kernan Crotty President and Chief Financial Officer



34
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5666 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5666

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the earned 
  income tax credit to taxpayers who exceed 40 hours of wage work per 
                                 week.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 31, 2008

Ms. Velazquez introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the earned 
  income tax credit to taxpayers who exceed 40 hours of wage work per 
                                 week.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Overtime Restoration Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. EITC INCREASED BY WEEKLY OVERTIME BONUS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 32 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to allowance of credit) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) Increase by weekly overtime bonus.--
                    ``(A) In general.--The amount allowed as a credit 
                under paragraph (1) (after the application of paragraph 
                (2)) shall be increased by the amount so allowed 
                multiplied by the weekly overtime bonus.
                    ``(B) Weekly overtime bonus.--For purposes of 
                subparagraph (A), the weekly overtime bonus is 1 
                percentage point for each week in the taxable year for 
                which the individual received earned income described 
                in subsection (c)(A)(i) for work of more than 40 hours 
                of service (within the meaning of section 
                410(a)(3)(C)).
                    ``(C) Special rule for joint returns.--In the case 
                of a joint return, subparagraph (A) shall be applied 
                separately to the taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse.
                    ``(D) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe 
                such regulations as may be necessary to prevent the 
                abuse of the purposes of this paragraph.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2008.
                                 <all>
```
BUTNER v. PIEDMONT TRIAD HOMES, INC.

No. COA05-1028.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 2, 2006.

Certification Date May 22, 2006.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. #252880).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
(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 Dex Media West LLC as of the dates and for
the periods expressed in the Report.
 /s/ David C. Swanson
    
    
    
    /s/ Steven M. BlondyDavid C. Swanson
    
    
    
    Steven M. BlondyChairman of the Board of Directors and
    
    
    
    Executive Vice President andChief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    Chief Financial OfficerAugust 7, 2009
    
    
    
    August 7, 2009
exv10w1



 








Exhibit 10.1




                        ,                     




Dear                     :



You have been awarded stock options by the Board of Directors of Digene
Corporation to help you participate in the ownership of Digene Corporation (the ‘Company’) as we
build the value of the Company through time. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Company’s
Amended and Restated 1999 Incentive Plan (the ‘Plan’), you have been granted a Non-Qualified Stock
Option (‘NQSO’) to purchase                     shares (the ‘Option’) of Common Stock of the Company, as
outlined below:



	 	 	 	 	 
	Granted To:
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	Grant Date:
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	# of Options Granted:
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	Exercise Price per Share:

	 	$
 

	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Option Type:

	 	Non-Qualified Stock Option	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Expiration Date:
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	Vesting Schedule:
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 






A copy of the Digene Corporation Amended and Restated 1999 Incentive Plan, the terms of which
govern the options granted, and the Digene Corporation Amended and Restated 1999 Incentive Plan
Prospectus, are available in the Finance section of Public Folders within Digene’s Microsoft
Outlook location or upon request from Digene’s Financial Reporting Department. At such time as
the options are exercised, the resulting shares of Common Stock will be registered under the
Digene Corporation Amended and Restated 1999 Incentive Plan.



Please note that your options are
NQSOs. On exercise, NQSOs are immediately taxable (under current
law) as ordinary income for the difference between the exercise price and the then current market
price.
Fluctuations after that point are taxed as capital gains on the sale or transfer of securities.
IN RE L.A.L.

No. COA05-1614.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 5, 2006.

Certification Date September 25, 2006.

Appeal from Durham (04J154).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. Arris James HINTON.

No. 113PA06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2006.

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Raleigh, for Arris James Hinton.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st day of May 2006 by Attorney General for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Attorney General shall have up to and including the 7th day of June 2006 to file and serve his/her brief *765with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 4th day of May 2006."
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5712 

To require disclosure by Federal contractors of certain violations relating 

to the award or performance of Federal contracts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 3, 2008 

Mr. WELCH of Vermont (for himself, Mr. TOWNS, and Mr. WAXMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To require disclosure by Federal contractors of certain violations relating to the award or performance of Federal 

contracts. 

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 ‘‘Close the Contractor 

5 Fraud Loophole Act’’. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5712 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO NOTIFY INSPECTORS GENERAL 

2 OF CERTAIN VIOLATIONS RELATED TO CER3 TAIN FEDERAL CONTRACTS. 

4 (a) NOTIFICATION OF CERTAIN CONTRACT VIOLA5 TIONS.— 

6 (1) REQUIREMENT.—A covered contractor shall 

7 submit written notification to the Office of Inspector 

8 General of the Executive agency that awarded the 

9 covered contract whenever the contractor has rea10 sonable grounds to believe that the contractor, or a 

11 principal, employee, agent, or subcontractor of the 

12 contractor, has committed a violation of Federal 

13 criminal law, or has received a significant overpay14 ment, in connection with the award or performance 

15 of the covered contract or any subcontract under the 

16 contract. 

17 (2) CAUSE FOR DEBARMENT OR SUSPENSION.— 

18 A knowing violation to notify an Inspector General 

19 of a violation or overpayment covered by paragraph 

20 (1) shall be a cause for debarment or suspension of 

21 the covered contractor. 

22 (3) TIMING OF NOTIFICATION.—A notification 

23 under paragraph (1) shall be submitted within 14 

24 days after the contractor becomes aware of the viola25 tion or overpayment. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5712 IH

1 (4) COPY OF NOTIFICATION.—A copy of any 

2 notification under paragraph (1) shall be submitted 

3 by the contractor to the contracting officer for the 

4 contract. 

5 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 

6 (1) The term ‘‘covered contract’’ means any 

7 contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 and 

8 more than 120 days in duration, whether performed 

9 inside or outside the United States. The term in10 cludes a contract for commercial items. 

11 (2) The term ‘‘covered contractor’’ means an 

12 entity performing a covered contract awarded by an 

13 executive agency. 

14 (3) The term ‘‘Executive agency’’ has the 

15 meaning provided in section 105 of title 5, United 

16 States Code. 

17 (c) APPLICABILITY.—This Act applies to all work 

18 performed under covered contracts, whether the work is 

19 performed inside or outside the United States. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1



TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.



OFFICERS CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (the Company) for the quarter ended November 30,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Thomas A. Hyde, Jr., Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, that, to the best of his knowledge:



1. The Report is in full compliances 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 operation of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Thomas A. Hyde, Jr.
|Thomas A. Hyde, Jr.    
|Chief Executive Officer
|January 17, 2006
In the Matters of C.L.C., K.T.R., A.M.R., and E.A.R.

No. 467A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 5, 2006.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 171 N.C.App. 438, 615 S.E.2d 704 (2005), affirming a judgment terminating respondent's parental rights signed *761on 15 October 2003 by Judge Marvin P. Pope in District Court, Buncombe County. On 26 January 2006, the Supreme Court allowed respondent's petition for discretionary review as to additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court 19 April 2006.

Charlotte W. Nallan and John Adams, Asheville, for petitioner-appellee Buncombe County Department of Social Services.

Charlotte Gail Blake, Jefferson, for respondent-appellant mother.

Judy N. Rudolph, Asheville, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM.

As to the appeal of right based on the dissenting opinion, we affirm the majority decision of the Court of Appeals. We conclude that the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues was improvidently allowed.

AFFIRMED; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.

Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2033

VALLEY CAMP COAL COMPANY,

Petitioner,

v.

SHIRLEY DOBRZYNSKI, on behalf of Edward E. Dobrzynski; 

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.

(10-0429-BLA)

Submitted: June 26, 2012 Decided: July 12, 2012

Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William S. Mattingly, JACKSON KELLY, PLLC, Morgantown, West 

Virginia, for Petitioner. Thomas E. Johnson, Anne Megan Davis, 

JOHNSON, JONES, SNELLING, GILBERT & DAVIS, Chicago, Illinois; M. 

Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor, Rae Ellen James, Associate 

Solicitor, Gary K. Stearman, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, 

Jonathan P. Rolfe, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Valley Camp Coal Company seeks review of the Benefits 

Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative 

law judge’s award of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. 

§§ 901-945 (2006). Our review of the record discloses that the 

Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is 

without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for 

review for the reasons stated by the Board. Valley Camp Coal 

Co. v. Dobrzynski, No. 10-0429-BLA (B.R.B. July 28, 2011). 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.

PETITION DENIED
STATE of North Carolina v. William John DERBECK.

No. 704A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2006.

Michael Casterline, Asheville, for William Derbeck.

*191Ted R. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 20th day of December 2005 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd day of March 2006."
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                          CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-13917, 333-14509, 333-18851 and 333-51291) pertaining to The
Sabre Group Holdings, Inc. 1996 Long-Term Incentive Plan, 1996 Directors Stock
Incentive Plan, Employee Stock Purchase Plan and Deferred Compensation Plan,
respectively, and the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-32106) of our
report dated January 15, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule of Sabre Holdings Corporation
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.



                                                        ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Dallas, Texas
February 26, 2001
TWAM, LLC v. CABARRUS COUNTY BD. OF EDUC.

No. COA05-1595.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 19, 2006

Certification Date October 9, 2006.

Appeal from Cabarrus (05CVS1602)

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
exv10w1



 






EXHIBIT 10.1









August 7, 2005


Equity One, Inc.

1600 North East Miami Gardens Drive

North Miami Beach, FL 33179


Attention: Mr. Chaim Katzman


Dear Mr. Katzman:




We have received your proposal to acquire our Company at a price of $17.00 per common share in cash. We are not prepared to respond to your proposal by
your deadline of 9:00 am on Monday. Our Board is considering your proposal and we expect to have a response as promptly as practicable.



Very truly yours,



Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Leo S. Ullman
 	 
	 	 	Leo S. Ullman 	 
	 	 	Chairman of the Board,

Chief Executive Officer and President
JOINT REDEVELOPMENT COM'N OF COUNTY OF PASQUOTANK v. JACKSON-HEARD.

No. COA05-676.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed February 21, 2006.

Certification Date March 13, 2006.

Appeal from Pasquotank (00CVS641).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 43111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15297]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

[Docket ID OCC-2022-0012]

Minority Depository Institutions Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Department of 
the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The OCC has determined that the renewal of the charter of the 
OCC Minority Depository Institutions Advisory Committee (MDIAC) is 
necessary and in the public interest. The OCC hereby gives notice of 
the renewal of the charter.

DATES: The charter of the OCC MDIAC has been renewed for a two-year 
period that began on June 23, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly F. Cole, Acting Senior Deputy 
Comptroller for Midsize and Community Bank Supervision and Designated 
Federal Officer, (202) 649-5420, Office of the Comptroller of the 
Currency, 400 Seventh Street SW, 20219.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of the renewal of the MDIAC charter 
is hereby given, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, 
pursuant to section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 
U.S.C. App. The Comptroller of the Currency has determined that the 
renewal of the MDIAC charter is necessary and in the public interest to 
provide advice and information about the current circumstances and 
future development of minority depository institutions, in accordance 
with the goals established by section 308 of the Financial Institutions 
Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), Public Law 101-
73, Title III, 103 Stat. 353, 12 U.S.C. 1463 note, which are to 
preserve the present number of minority depository institutions, 
preserve the minority character of minority depository institutions in 
cases involving mergers or acquisitions, provide technical assistance, 
and encourage the creation of new minority depository institutions.

Michael J. Hsu,
Acting Comptroller of the Currency.
[FR Doc. 2022-15297 Filed 7-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```