alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the Matter of Tiffini Colette BELL.

No. S16Y1280.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

May 23, 2016.

Tiffini Colette Bell, The Law Office of Tiffini C. Bell, LLC, Atlanta, for appellant.

A.M. Christina Petrig, Paula J. Frederick, Gen. Counsel, State Bar of Georgia, Atlanta, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the petition for voluntary discipline filed by Tiffini Colette Bell (State Bar No. 676971), prior to the issuance of a formal complaint, see Bar Rule 4-227(b)(2). In her petition, Bell, who became a member of the Bar in 2006, seeks the imposition of a public reprimand, and admits that, in the representation of a client in a child custody matter, she violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, and 8.4(a)(4) by failing to truthfully communicate with her client regarding discovery and appointment of a guardian ad litem, failing to timely respond to discovery, failing to seek appointment of a guardian ad litem, and failing to thoroughly prepare for certain hearings. The maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.3 and 8.4(a)(4) is disbarment, and the maximum sanction for a violation of 1.4 is a public reprimand. Bell also admits that she received a confidential reprimand by the Investigative Panel on November 20, 2015. In mitigation, Bell states, and the State Bar does not disagree, that she lacked a selfish motive, that she sincerely regrets her conduct, and that she has shown a cooperative attitude in the disciplinary proceedings.

Having reviewed the petition and the State Bar's response, we conclude that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction in this case, and we therefore accept the petition for voluntary discipline. Accordingly, the Court hereby orders that Bell receive a public reprimand in accordance with Bar Rules 4-102(b)(3) and 4-220(c) for her admitted violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, and 8.4(a)(4).

*Petition for voluntary discipline accepted. Public reprimand.*

All the Justices concur.
STATE v. Dominique Jevon PERRY.

No. 81A14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 3, 2016.

Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Perry, Dominique Jevon.

Staples Hughes, Durham.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 2nd of February 2016 by Defendant:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of February 2016."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 30th day of March 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18300]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Meeting, Notice of Vote, Explanation of Action Closing 
Meeting and List of Persons To Attend

September 8, 2005.
    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to Section 
3(a) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 
552b:

Agency Holding Meeting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Date and Time: September 15, 2005 (within a relatively short time after 
the Commission's open meeting on September 15, 2005).

Place: 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Non-Public Investigations and Inquiries, 
Enforcement Related Matters, and Security of Regulated Facilities.

Contact Person for More Information: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, 
Telephone (202) 502-8400.
    Chairman Kelliher and Commissioners Brownell and Kelly voted to 
hold a closed meeting on September 15, 2005. The certification of the 
General Counsel explaining the action closing the meeting is available 
for public inspection in the Commission's Public Reference Room at 888 
First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Chairman and the Commissioners, their assistants, the 
Commission's Secretary and her assistant, the General Counsel and 
members of her staff, and a stenographer are expected to attend the 
meeting. Other staff members from the Commission's program offices who 
will advise the Commissioners in the matters discussed will also be 
present.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-18300 Filed 9-9-05; 3:57 pm]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Notices 55341 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal No. 05–33] 

36(b)(1)Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/ADM, (703) 604–

6575. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittal 05–33 with 

attached transmittal, policy justification, 

and Sensitivity of Technology. 

Dated: September 14, 2005. 

L.M. Bynum, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

55342 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Notices 


EN21SE05.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Notices 55343 


EN21SE05.006</GPH>
55344 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Notices 


EN21SE05.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Notices 55345 


EN21SE05.008</GPH>
55346 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Notices 


EN21SE05.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Notices 55347 

[FR Doc. 05–18755 Filed 9–20–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal No. 05–29) 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/ADM, (703) 604–

6575. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittal 05–29 with 

attached transmittal, policy justification, 

Sensitivity of Technology and Section 

620C(d). 

Dated: September 14, 2005. 

L.M. Bynum, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


EN21SE05.010</GPH>
In the Matter of A.E.M., J.I.J.

No. COA15-1022.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 17, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2008223EN.01001001.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Genova — Italy) — Corporación Dermoestética SA v To Me Group Advertising Media

(Case C-500/06) (1)

1

(Articles 3(1)(g) EC, 4 EC, 10 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC, 81 EC, 86 EC and 98 EC - National legislation prohibiting advertisements for medical or surgical treatments of a cosmetic nature)

(2008/C 223/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di Pace di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Corporación Dermoestética SA

Applicant:

Defendant: To Me Group Advertising Media

Defendant:

Intervener: Cliniche Futura Srl

Intervener:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di Pace di Genova — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC, 49 EC, 81 EC, 86 EC and 98 EC — Compatibility of a national provision prohibiting the broadcasting of advertisements on national television networks for medical and surgical treatments carried out in private health care establishments and limiting expenditure on advertising to 5 % of income for the previous year

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, read in conjunction with Articles 48 EC and 55 EC, must be interpreted as precluding legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it prohibits the broadcasting of advertisements for medical and surgical treatments provided by private health care establishments on national television networks while at the same time permitting such advertisements, subject to certain conditions, on local television networks.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
# C_2007020EN.01002401.xml

| 27.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/24

---

Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin v Commission

(Case T-356/06)

(2007/C 20/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Claimant: Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin NV (represented by: E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and Y. de Vries, lawyers)

Claimant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | set aside Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), or at least set that decision aside to the extent to which it is addressed to Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), or at least set that decision aside to the extent to which it is addressed to Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin;

| — | order the Commission to pay its own costs and also those of Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay its own costs and also those of Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The claimant is challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), which imposed a fine on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.

In support of its action, the claimant invokes a breach of Article 81 EC and of Articles 7 and 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003. According to the claimant, the Commission applied an incorrect standard for the purpose of determining the liability of a parent company and in so doing wrongly concluded that the claimant was principally liable for the alleged conduct of Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin B.V.

---
**Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 December 2007 – Commission v Portugal**

**(Case C‐284/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/51/EC – Public procurement – Procedures for the award of contracts – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 8)

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on public procurement (OJ 2005 L 257, p. 127). |

**Operative part**

The Court

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on public procurement, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136485 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136485 

 COA: 284475 

Kent CC: 07-009460-FH 

ROBERT MARK JENKINS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 30, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
STATE of North Carolina v. James Matthew JOHNSON.

No. COA15-1156.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 21, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

No Prejudicial Error, in part, and Remanded in part.
# CE2004078EN.01038401.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/384 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/384

---

(2004/C 78 E/0406)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1739/03

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 May 2003)

Subject:   European Union unit to work for the release of kidnapped European tourists

Subject:

The frequent cases of European tourists being kidnapped in third countries which they are visiting for their historical, cultural and other attractions have highlighted the need for the European Union to have a permanent team of negotiators and mediators to intercede with the relevant national authorities to secure the release of Community nationals who have fallen victim to these inhuman practices at the hands of local terrorists.

In this way, Community negotiators could keep the families of victims better informed than is currently the case with local authorities, which are seeking to cover up the failure of their own efforts.

Will the Commission propose to Member States that permanent Community negotiating teams be set up to secure the release of European tourists who have been kidnapped in third countries for internal political reasons which have nothing to do with them?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2003)

(24 June 2003)

Protection of Union citizens is enshrined in article 20 of the EC Treaty, and includes the protection of any Union citizen by diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented. Under article 20 of the EC Treaty this responsibility relates also to Commission missions.

Within the limits of these provisions, the Commission has in the past cooperated closely with the Member State authorities to resolve situations of crisis or kidnapping of Union citizens. This cooperation has been carried out both in Brussels as well as through the Commission's External Service. However, given that under Article 20 of the EC Treaty consular protection first and foremost remains a responsibility of the Member States, it is currently not planned to set up any specialised Community facility.

---
# C_2011145EN.01002001.xml

| 14.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — IMI and Others v Commission

(Case T-378/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Relevant turnover - Leniency Notice - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Equal treatment)

2011/C 145/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: IMI plc (Birmingham, United Kingdom); IMI Kynoch Ltd (Birmingham); Yorkshire Fittings Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom); VSH Italia Srl (Bregnano, Italy); Comap SA, formerly Aquatis France SAS (La Chapelle-Saint-Mesmin, France); and Simplex Armaturen + Fittings GmbH & Co. KG (Argenbühl-Eisenharz, Germany) (represented by: M. Struys and D. Arts, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and V. Bottka, acting as Agents, and by S. Kinsella, Solicitor, and K. Nordlander, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings), and also, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders IMI plc, IMI Kynoch Ltd, Yorkshire Fittings Ltd, VSH Italia Srl, Comap SA and Simplex Armaturen + Fittings GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders IMI plc, IMI Kynoch Ltd, Yorkshire Fittings Ltd, VSH Italia Srl, Comap SA and Simplex Armaturen + Fittings GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

1

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Exhibit 10.35

                       Amendment to the Dime Bancorp, Inc.
                     Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan

                           Effective January 29, 1998


            The Dime Bancorp, Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan
(the "Plan") is hereby amended in the following particulars:

            1. Clause (ii) of the second paragraph of Paragraph 5 of the Plan is
amended to read as follows:

            (ii)  is the Participant's other taxable cash-based
                  compensation payable under the Dime Bancorp,
                  Inc. Officer Incentive Plan or other cash-based
                  incentive plan or program or individual
                  arrangement providing for cash-based incentive
                  compensation, in each case with respect to the
                  period for which the determination is made, but
                  excluding any amounts paid (A) to the
                  Participant as a sign-on bonus in connection
                  with the initial commencement of employment of
                  the Participant with the Company or any Parent
                  or Subsidiary and (B) to the Participant with
                  respect to the grant of rights to purchase, and
                  the related purchase of, restricted common
                  stock of the Company;"
NO. 07-08-0175-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

______________________________

EDWIN DEGRAFF,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 64 DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY; th

NO. B16020-0505; HON. ROBERT W. KINKAID, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Abatement and Remand

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Appellant Edwin DeGraff appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a

child. On June 16, 2008, the clerk’s record was filed. The reporter’s record was due on

July 11, 2008. Two extensions of that deadline have been granted to date. However, the

court reporter has now filed her third extension. 

Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 64 District Court th

of Hale County (trial court) for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court shall
2

immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to

determine the following:

1. when the reporter’s record can reasonably be filed (given the length of

trial and size of the record) in a manner that does not unduly delay the

prosecution of this appeal, and,

2. whether an alternate or substitute reporter should or can be appointed to

complete the record in a timely manner. 

The trial court shall 1) execute findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing

the foregoing issues, and 2) cause to be developed a supplemental clerk’s record

containing its findings of fact and conclusions of law and all orders it may issue as a result

of its hearing in this matter. Additionally, the district court shall then cause the

supplemental record to be filed with the clerk of this court on or before October 23, 2008.

 Should further time be needed by the trial court to perform these tasks, then same must

be requested before October 23, 2008.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
Exhibit 32

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002), I, the undersigned, hereby certify that to the best of my
knowledge the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Titan Technologies, Inc. for
the quarterly period ended April 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


                Ronald L. Wilder
                ----------------------------
                Ronald L. Wilder,  President
                (Chief  Executive  Officer)
                (Chief  Financial  Officer)