alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Nickie B. VanMETER KBA Membership No. 81740, Respondent.

No. 2003-SC-0464-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Aug. 21, 2003.

OPINION AND ORDER

By order entered October 3, 1986, this Court admitted Respondent, Nickie Barton VanMeter of Louisville, Kentucky, to the practice of law in this Commonwealth. For the benefit of the public and members of the Bar, Complainant, the Kentucky Bar Association (“KBA”), now requests that this Court enter a published order to confirm that, as a result of Respondent’s June 11, 2003 guilty pleas to six (6) felony offenses, Respondent has been automatically suspended from the practice of law pursuant to SCR 3.166(1). For the following reasons, we grant the KBA’s request.

In Jefferson Circuit Court Criminal Action Number 02-CR-0968, the Jefferson County Grand Jury charged Respondent with six (6) felony offenses — First-Degree Perjury, Tampering With Physical Evidence, Tampering With Public Records, and three (8) counts of Second-Degree Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument — relating to Respondent’s attempt to secure probate of a will that he knew was forged as well as his possession of a forged deed. On June 11, 2003, Respondent entered guilty pleas (under *North Carolina v.*Alford1) to each count of the indictment, and the Commonwealth recommended that the trial court impose a probated total sentence of twenty (20) years. The trial court scheduled final sentencing for July 21, 2003.

> SCR 3.166(1) provides that:

> Any member of the Kentucky Bar Association who pleads guilty or is convicted by a judge or jury of a felony as defined in KRS 500.080 shall be automatically suspended from the practice of law in the Commonwealth. The suspension shall take effect automatically beginning on the day following the plea of guilty or finding of guilt by a judge or jury or upon the entry of judgment whichever occurs first. The suspension under this rule shall remain in effect until dissolved or superseded by order of the Court.2

Accordingly, Respondent was temporarily suspended as of June 12, 2003. We thus grant the KBA’s request for entry of a published order confirming Respondent’s suspension.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

(1) Pursuant to SCR 3.166(1), Respondent, Nickie Barton VanMeter, was automatically suspended from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky as of June 12, 2003, and this suspension shall remain in effect until dissolved or superseded by subsequent order from this Court.

(2) Respondent shall comply with the provisions of SCR 3.166(4) & (5) regarding notification to his clients of his inability to continue to represent them and ending any advertising activities in which he is engaged.

(3) Disciplinary proceedings against Respondent shall be initiated by the Inquiry Commission pursuant to SCR 3.160, unless *864already begun or unless Respondent resigns under terms of disbarment.

All concur.

Entered: August 21, 2003.

/s/ Joseph E. Lambert CHIEF JUSTICE

1

. 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970).

2

. SCR 3.661(1).
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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
THOMAS PROPERTIES GROUP, INC. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and
for the periods expressed in the Report.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: August 12, 2010 |  | /s/ Diana M. Laing     
|                       |  | Diana M. Laing         
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated by reference in any registration
statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Non. E. B. Lewis 

County Attorney 

Cherokee County 

Rusk, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion ~No.‘o-1257 

Re: Appointment by.'widow bf brother 

of her deceased, husband; a&withIn th6,Nepotcsm Law.> : 

Wis ~h&ve your ,telegraphi'& I??tifiesF.?;,of August 7, 

1939, in which you ask,the following questf6h: ', .. .~ 

Where the sheriff of Cherokee County was killed, 

his widow appointed to fill his unexpired term, there being no 

children; may the widow appoint her deceased husband's brother 

as deputy sheriff? 

Article 432, Penal Code,~ 1925, the so-called 

"Nepotism" Law, reads as follows: 

,"No officer of this State or any officer ~~ 

of any district, county, city, precinct, school 

district, nor other munlciptil kubdiylslon,of this State, 

or any officer or member of any State, district, county, 

city 3 school district or other municipal board, or 

judge of any court, created by ,or under authority of 

any general or special law of this State, or any 

member ,of the Legislature, shall appoint, or vote 

for, or confirm the appointment to any office, po: 

sition, clerkship, employment or duty, of any person related within the second degree by affinity or 

within the third degree by consanguinity to the person so appointing or so voting, or to any other 

member of any sudh board, the Legislature, or court 

of which such person so appointing or voting may be 

a member, when the salary, fees, or compensation of 

such appointee is to be paid for, directly or indirectly, out of or from public funds or fees of office 

of any kind or character whatsoever." 
247 

.Hon. E. B. Lewis, Page #t. 

The rollowing quotation taken rr0m the aase or 

Leafs vs. GIRalr, 130 S. W. (2df 919, by the Austin Court 

of Civil Appeals, governs the detera&natlon or this question: 

-Death of the spoaae terminatea the relationship by afrinity; if, however, the marriage 

has resulted in issue who are still living, the 

relationship by affinity oontlnuea.* 

See also StrlngrallOw ~8. State, 42 Tax~*Or., Rep. 

504, 61 S. VI. 719; 2 C.J. p. 379. 

Since you state that there were no lab& ~rr&i'tlia 

union of the deceased sharlff and hla widow, whanaw.ea~was sheriff by appointment, the widow is no longer related 

by afrlnlty to the brother of her deoeaaed husband, and, 

therefore, she may appoint tha brother of har deoaaaad 

husband as a deputy sheriff, ulthout violating the Provlaions 

of Artiole 432, Penal Code, quoted above. 

Yours gery truly 

ATTORNEY GZNERAL OF TBXAS 

R. W. Palrahlld 

Aaalatant 

RpJFxpbp APPROVEUAUG 19; 1939 

ATTORREY GENERAL OP TEXAS
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000317 22-MAR-2016 07:48 AM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

DAVID JAMES HOLLENBACK JR.,

Petitioner

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

AND CENTRE COUNTY COURT OF

COMMON PLEAS,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 22 MM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8th day of May , 2019, the Application for Leave to File Original

Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for a Writ of Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re David Torres, Torres Metals Recycling, and Torres Salvage, Inc

Appellate case number: 01

- 17

- 00967

- CV

Trial court case number: 33276

Trial court: 12th District Court of Grimes County

Relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking us to compel the trial court to

vacate its reinstatement order . Relator also filed a motion for emergency relief

. We granted

relator’s request for emergency relief and issued an order staying all trial court proceedings. In

th e order, we asked real party in interest, Benny Torres, to file a response to the petition by

January 12, 2018. Real party instead filed a copy of a notice of nonsuit filed in the trial court.

We direct relator to file a response within 10 days of the date of this order addressing

whether this proceeding is moot

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jennifer Caughey

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 2 5 , 2018
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio Colon, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 848]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Torres, J.), rendered October 26, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, 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 offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon *361which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GENE CASHMAN; ATHENA SUTSOS,  No. 03-15066

Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No.

v. CV-99-03641-SBA/  RS CITY OF COTATI, a municipal

Northern District of corporation,

California, Oakland Defendant-Appellee.

ORDER 

Filed July 15, 2005

Before: Arthur L. Alarcón, Robert R. Beezer, and

William A. Fletcher, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

This court suspended consideration of appellee’s petition

for rehearing and rehearing en banc pending the Supreme

Court’s issuance of a decision in Lingle v. Chevron USA, 125

S. Ct. 2074 (2005). The Supreme Court’s opinion in Lingle

requires us to grant the City of Cotati’s petition for rehearing

and to withdraw our opinion filed July 15, 2004. 

We affirm the district court’s judgment in favor of the City

of Cotati. See, e.g., Lentini v. Center for the Arts, 370 F.3d

837, 850 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming district court’s judgment

after trial on a different ground). Cashman’s takings claim,

which alleges that the City of Cotati’s mobilehome park rent

control ordinance effects an unconstitutional regulatory taking

by failing to substantially advance a legitimate government

interest, is foreclosed by Lingle. 125 S. Ct. at 2087 (holding

8249
that the “substantially advances formula is not a valid takings

test” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

The petition for rehearing is GRANTED. Our prior opinion

filed July 15, 2004 is WITHDRAWN. The district court’s

judgment in favor of the City of Cotati is AFFIRMED. 

8250 CASHMAN v. CITY OF COTATI

PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2005 Thomson/West.
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

Notice is hereby given that the following have been issued a Certificate of Financial Responsibility  for Indemnification of Passengers for Nonperformance of Transportation pursuant to the provisions of section 3, Public Law 89-777 (46 App. U.S.C. 817 (e)) and the Federal Maritime Commission's implementing regulations at 46 CFR part 540, as amended:

                    Costa Crociere S.p.A. and Costa Cruise Lines N.V., Venture Corporate Center II,  200 South Park Road, Suite 200, Hollywood, FL 33021-8541.                     *Vessel:*                     COSTA MAGICA.                

                    NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. d/b/a NCL, 7665 Corporate Center Drive, Miami, FL 33126.                     *Vessel:*                     NORWEGIAN JEWEL, PRIDE OF AMERICA.                

                    Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. and Carnival PLC, 24305 Town Center Drive, Santa Clarita, CA 91355.                     *Vessel:*                     CROWN PRINCESS, TAHITIAN PRINCESS, SEA PRINCESS.                

                    Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (d/b/a Royal Caribbean International), 1050 Caribbean Way,  Miami, FL 33132-2096.                     *Vessel:*                     FREEDOM OF THE SEAS.                

Dated: September 30, 2005.

Bryant L. VanBrakle,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 05-20011 Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Darren James BOUDWIN.

No. 2002-KH-3049.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 29, 2003.

In re Boudwin, Darren James;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. E, Nos. 345,-947, 351,532; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No(s). 2001 KA 2732, 2001 KA 2733..

Application dismissed at relator’s request.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS

The undersigned, as the chief executive officer of Valley Financial Corporation,
certify that the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Valley Financial Corporation at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code and is subject to the knowledge and willfulness qualifications contained in Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350(c).

Dated: March 15, 2007



/s/ Ellis L. GutshallChief Executive Officer




121
#### Bernard K. Crawford, Jr., Appellant, v Anne W. Crawford, Respondent.

[719 NYS2d 40]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered October 15, 1999, *inter alia,*distributing the parties’ marital property, including 50% of the value of plaintiff’s medical practice and enhanced earning capacity, and directing the reimbursement to defendant’s father of monies found to be investments in certain of the marital properties and not gifts, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court’s finding, largely one of credibility, that defendant’s non-economic contributions during the period that plaintiff was in training were substantial, and justify an equal share in the value of his medical practice and enhanced earning capacity *(see, Thoreson v Penthouse Intl.,*80 NY2d 490, 495). The finding that defendant’s father did not intend to make a gift to the parties of various contributions he made toward the purchase of several of their properties is also supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, including documents showing his retention of ownership interests in the properties, and the absence of evidence indicating that the only purpose of such *282documents was to serve as facades, designed to save taxes or otherwise motivated, for what were really gifts *(compare, Fedun v Fedun,*228 AD2d 907). We have reviewed plaintiffs other arguments and find them to be unavailing. Concur— Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
J-S31005-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

THOMAS MICHAEL LUCAS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1037 WDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 7, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-10-SA-0000036-2018

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.: FILED JUNE 25, 2019

Appellant, Thomas Michael Lucas, appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered on June 7, 2018, in the Butler County Court of Common 

Pleas. Appellant failed to preserve any issues for appellate review, as such, 

we affirm.

On June 7, 2018, Appellant pled guilty to the summary charge of driving 

while operating privilege is suspended or revoked.1 The trial court sentenced 

Appellant to pay the costs of prosecution, a $500.00 fine, and 60 days of 

house arrest with electronic monitoring. On July 5, 2018, Appellant filed a 

notice of appeal. On July 27, 2018, the trial court, in compliance with 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), directed Appellant to file a concise statement of matters 

____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(b)(1)
J-S31005-19

- 2 -

complained of on appeal within 21 days or risk waiver of his claims. Appellant 

failed to file a concise statement. Accordingly, Appellant has waived his 

claims.2 See. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Commonwealth v. Lagenella, 17 A.3d 

1257, 1265 (Pa. Super. 2011), reversed on other grounds, 83 A.3d 94 (Pa. 

2013); Commonwealth v. Kimble, 756 A.2d 78, 80 (Pa. Super. 2000).

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/25/2019

____________________________________________

2 Moreover, Appellant’s one-page, handwritten brief fails in its entirety to 

comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, including the 

failure to present any issues or provide any argument. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111, 

2114-2119. 
J-S31005-19

- 3 -
#### Jacqueline C. Corcia, Respondent, v Charles Rothberg, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 873]

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated February 15, 2000, as denied that branch of his motion which was to dismiss the plaintiff’s cause of action sounding in medical malpractice to the extent it was based on treatment rendered before March 28, 1996, on the ground that it was barred by the Statute of Limitations.

*497Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the issue of whether the defendant’s treatment of the plaintiff on March 28, 1996, constituted part of a continuous course of treatment could not be resolved on the record. Accordingly, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the cause of action sounding in medical malpractice to the extent it was based on treatment before March 28, 1996, was properly denied (see, *Bidetti v Salter,*108 AD2d 890; *see also, Neureuther v Calabrese,*195 AD2d 1035; *Siegel v Wank,*183 AD2d 158). S. Miller, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.3



Written Statement of the Chief Operating Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned President and Chief Operating Officer of Regency Centers Corporation, the general partner of Regency Centers, L.P. (the
Partnership), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Partnership for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.



Date: March 14, 2005



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|/s/ Mary Lou Fiala                    
|Mary Lou Fiala Chief Operating Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 27, 2010 

s0419 

Order 

 

April 27, 2010 

140258 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140258 

 COA: 286617 

Isabella CC: 07-001863-FH 

EVAN THOMAS DESJARDINS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 3, 2009 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.