alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2000 OK JUD ETH 8.

#### JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINION 2000-8.

No. 2000-8.

Oklahoma Judicial Ethics Advisory Panel.

Nov. 14, 2000.

10 QUESTION 1: May a judicial appointee sell his/her legal practice to attorneys, one of whom will be bringing the judicial appointee's cases into the court of which he/she will be part of a panel?

{1 SPECIFIC FACTS: A sole practitioner has been appointed to a judicial position. The practice, consisting of two separate areas of expertise, is sold to separate attorneys, one of which is in the area where the judicial appointee is a member of a judicial panel. The other area of expertise involves cases that will never be presented to the judicial appointee. The sale price is based on a percent of the earned fee in cases specified in the sales contract and is to be paid as each of the specified cases is settled or tried and the fee received. The judicial appointee understands that he/she cannot practice law after the judicial appointment and has sold the practice of law pursuant to "Rules of Professional Conduct", (Title 5, Chapter 1, Appendix 3A, Rule 1.7).

T2 WE ANSWER: - YES.

T3 Canon 4D(1): - "A judge should not engage in financial and business dealings that:

> .... (b) involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with those lawyers or other persons likely to come before the court on which the judge serves."

T4 Canon 3E(1): - "A judge should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned ..."

15 None of the Canons in the Code of Judicial Conduct prevent a judicial appointee from selling his/her practice of law to attorneys either before or after taking the oath of office. Several peripheral questions arise with rather obvious answers. The judge cannot practice law and that means that the judge can in no way participate in any of the pending cases that have been transferred to the purchasing attorney. A *266judge cannot hear any of the cases from the judge's former law practice, nor sit as part of a panel when any of the cases are presented.

16 If the attorney to whom the practice was sold appears before the judge in cases other than those transferred by the judge, the judge should make known to adverse counsel the business relationship between the judge and the attorney. Such a disclosure should be continued so long as there is a business relationship between the judge and the attorney and for so long as the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

T7 Robert L. Bailey, Chairman.

1 8 Robert A. Layden, Vice-Chairman.

T 6 Milton C. Craig, Secretary.
STATE of North Carolina v. James CHARLES

No. 215P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018.

Alvin William Keller, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Greg Newman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

M. Gordan Widenhouse, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Charles, James.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th of July 2018 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."
#### Ex parte Jerry T. FITCH, Sr. (In re Jerry T. Fitch, Sr. v. State of Alabama).

1010683.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 24, 2003.

William J. Baxley and David McKnight of Baxley, Dillard, Dauphin & McKnight, Birmingham, for petitioner.

William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen., and Elizabeth Ray Butler, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.

JOHNSTONE, Justice.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. In denying the petition for the writ of certiorari, this Court does not wish to be understood as approving all the language, reasoning, and statements of law in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals. *Horsley v. Horsley,*291 Ala. 782, *142280 So.2d 155 (1973). This denial of the petition for the writ of certiorari is not an endorsement of the opinion of the lower appellate court. *Ex parte Terry,*540 So.2d 785 (Ala.1989); *Banks v. State,*358 So.2d 480 (Ala.1978); and *Hurst v. State,*293 Ala. 548, 307 So.2d 73 (1975).

WRIT DENIED.

MOORE, C.J., and HOUSTON, LYONS, and WOODALL, JJ„ concur.
##### 



FIRST MODIFICATION OF LOAN AGREEMENT
 THIS FIRST MODIFICATION OF LOAN AGREEMENT SUMMIT HOTEL PROPERTIES, LLC ( Borrower ) ING LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY COMPANY ( Lender )
 WITNESSETH:
 WHEREAS, Loan Agreement
 WHEREAS,
 NOW, THEREFORE,
 1.
    
    The Loan Agreement is hereby modified to delete the chart appearing in Section 3.07(i)
in its entirety and insert in its place the following:
 PRINCIPAL
    
    ALLOCATION
    
    RELEASEPROPERTY
    
    ALLOCATION
    
    PERCENTAGE
    
    FACTOR(1)
    
    Fairfield Inn
1680 Fenton Business
Park Court
    
    $
    2,637,900
    
    
    
    7.21
    %
    
    
    110
    %(2)
    
    Comfort Inn
2120 Burnham Road
    
    $
    3,312,900
    
    
    
    9.05
    %
    
    
    110
    %(3)
    
    Hampton Inn
8219 West Jefferson Blvd.
    
    $
    5,632,900
    
    
    
    15.39
    %
    
    
    120
    %(4)
    
    Courtyard by Marriott
4559 North Reserve St.
    
    $
    5,709,900
    
    
    
    15.60
    %
    
    
    125
    %(5)
    
    Comfort Inn
4545 North Reserve St.
    
    $
    2,345,900
    
    
    
    6.41
    %
    
    
    110
    %(6)
    
    Hawthorn Suites
975 North Lakeview Pkwy.
    
    $
    5,607,900
    
    
    
    15.32
    %
    
    
    120
    %(7)
    
    Hampton Inn
9231 East Arapahoe Rd.
    
    $
    5,862,900
    
    
    
    16.02
    %
    
    
    125
    %(8)
    
    Comfort Suites
10680 South Automall Dr.
    
    $
    2,894,900
    
    
    
    7.91
    %
    
    
    120
    %(9)
    
    Fairfield Inn
2697 Lake Vista Drive
    
    $
    2,595,600
    
    
    
    7.09
    %
    
    
    125
    %TOTAL
    
    $
    36,600,800
    
    
    
    100.00
    %




---



##### 



2.
    
    The Loan Agreement is hereby further modified by deleting the address 2303 North
Fourth appearing in Section 3.07(ii)and replacing it with the address 1680 Fenton Business
Park Court.
 3.
    
    Borrower acknowledges that Lender has permitted one Substitution (as that term is
defined in the Loan Agreement) on even date herewith. Accordingly Section 3.08(e) of the Loan
Agreement is hereby modified such that from and after the date hereof Borrower shall not be
permitted to request and close more than a total of two (2) additional Substitutions during
the Loan term.
 4.
    
    Except as expressly modified hereby, the Loan Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect, Borrower and Lender hereby ratifying and affirming the same.
  
 - 2 -




---



##### 



BORROWER:SUMMIT HOTEL PROPERTIES, LLC, a SouthDakota limited liability companyBy:
    
    /s/ Christopher D. Bills

     Christopher D. Bills,Chief Financial Officer
  
 - 3 -




---



##### 



LENDER:ING LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY COMPANY, a Georgia corporationBy:
    
    ING Investment Management LLC, as AuthorizedAgentBy:/s/ Gregory R. MichaudName: Gregory R. Michaud
Title: Vice President
 
 - 4 -
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
         THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
         REGISTRANT'S AUDITED DECEMBER 31, 1999 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
         QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           5,115
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              21
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      8,885
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          18,025
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            17,721
<LOANS>                                        100,857
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,017
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 139,962
<DEPOSITS>                                     110,273
<SHORT-TERM>                                     9,571
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                544
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        23,187
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,613)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 139,962
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,479
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  994
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   457
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,930
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,318
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,448
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,482
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      525
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,396
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    636
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         252
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       252
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     5.6
<LOANS-NON>                                        154
<LOANS-PAST>                                        41
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   602
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      178
<RECOVERIES>                                        68
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,017
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,017
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0



</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.4

                                 CYBERBANK CORP.

   18TH Floor Mirae Bldg., 1306-6 Seucho-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Korea 137-855
                       Tel: 02-3483-4500 Fax: 02-3483-4600


PC-Ephone Inc.
5375 Mira Sorrento Place, Suite 290
San Diego, California 92121

Attention:                 Mr. David Meltzer / President & CEO

                                                            Date : 12 April 2002
Re :          Transferring Agreement right

Dear Mr. Meltzer,

We, Cyberbank Corporation, agrees transferring the Distribution Agreement rights
between we and PC-Ephone LTD, a Bermuda Corporation having its head office at
129 Front Street Hamilton, Bermuda HM12, to PC-Ephone LTD, a Nevada Corporation
having its head office at 5375 Mira Sorrento Place, Suite 290 San Diego, CA
92121, U.S.A.

This agreement letter of transferring rights to PC-Ephone, LTD. Nevada
Corporation is due to the fact that PC-EPhone., LTD, Burmuda Corporation will be
closed and based on the premise that Cyberbank Corporation will set up a new
business relation with a merged entity of PC-EPhone., LTD or its successor.


Thank you.

Best Regards,

/s/ Young Sun Cho

Young Sun Cho
President / CEO
Cyberbank Corporation.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-2538

_____________________________

MARCUS D. JACKSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus—Original Jurisdiction.

May 29, 2024

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

LEWIS, ROWE, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Marcus D. Jackson, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FOLLOWING SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF THE TRUST 
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY THE DETAILED INFORMATION AND
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PREVIOUSLY FILED WITH THE SECURITIES &
EXCHANGE COMMISSION.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  850,665
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (28,242)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 879,314
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        851,878
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   879,314
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                88,941
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,731
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                41,463
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,746
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE TRUST WERE PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION INDUSTRY STANDARDS.  ACCORDINGLY, THE TRUST'S
BALANCE SHEETS WERE NON-CLASSIFIED.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
STATE v. Max Tracy EARLS

227P14-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2018

Amar Majmundar, Senior Deputy Attorney General, David Learner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

Max Tracy Earls, for Earls, Max Tracy

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of September 2018 by Defendant for Rehearing En Banc Constitutional Question:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of December 2018."
STATE v. Tilmon Charles GOLPHIN

441A98-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 13, 2018

Jay H. Ferguson, Kenneth J. Rose, Attorneys at Law, Durham, for Golphin, Tilmon Charles.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

James E. Williams, Jr., Attorney at Law, Carrboro, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Grady Jessup, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Association of Black Lawyers.

Lisa A. Bakale-Wise, Attorney at Law, Irving Joyner, Attorney at Law, Durham, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP.

Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Social Scientists.

Janet Moore, Attorney at Law, for National Association for Public Defense.

Robert P. Mosteller, Attorney at Law, for Professors John Charles Boger & Robert P. Mosteller.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of July 2018 by North Carolina Associates of Black Lawyers for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of July 2018."
Order filed September 3, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00357-CR

____________

ERIK KUETHER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from County Criminal Court at Law No. 7

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1935745

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was originally due June 1, 2015. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 35.1. This court granted the court reporter’s second request for 

extension of time to file the record until August 31, 2015. On August 28, 2015, the 

court reporter filed a third motion for extension of time to file the record, until 

September 30, 2015. Finding the court reporter has alleged exceptional 

circumstances, we GRANT the request and issue the following order. 
We order Sandra Powell, the court reporter, to file the record in this appeal 

on or before September 30, 2015. No further extension will be entertained 

absent exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate courts are jointly 

responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.3(c). If Sandra Powell does not timely file the record as ordered, the Court 

may issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the 

reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
#### Hudson Electrical Contractors, Inc., Plaintiff, v Merriam Gateway Associates, Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.) (Action No. 1.) York/Hunter, Inc., Respondent, et al., Plaintiffs, v Merriam Gateway Associates et al., Appellants. (Action No. 2.)

[719 NYS2d 881]

In two related actions to enforce a judgment of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Sussex County, filed June 12, 1997, the defendants in Action No. 2, Merriam Gateway Associates, a New Jersey Partnership, and Benjamin Oratz, appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated October 18, 1999, as denied their motion to dismiss that action.

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

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, Action No. 2 is not barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel *(see, Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65*NY2d 449).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are either without merit or improperly raised for the first time on appeal *(see, Block v Magee,*146 AD2d 730). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.
| Subsidiaries                                 |   | 2014       |   |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|------------|--------|
|                                         |   |       |   |
| Telefônica Data S.A.                    |   | 100%       |   |
| Aliança Atlântica Holding B.V.(1)  |   |   50% |   |
| Companhia AIX de Participações (1) |   |   50% |   |
| Companhia ACT de Participações (1) |   |   50% |   |

|   | (1) | jointly controlled |
|--------|-----|--------------------|

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                             LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST

                           CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY
            RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

      In connection with the Annual Report of Liberty Property Trust (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, WILLIAM
P. HANKOWSKY, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify in
connection with Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, that based on 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ WILLIAM P. HANKOWSKY
-----------------------------------------------
William P. Hankowsky
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  March 14, 2006
#### Horace J. SAWYER, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent.

No. 1D02-2279.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 31, 2003.

Dennis E. Boothe, P.A., Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

William L. Camper, General Counsel, and Alexandria E. Walters, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Parole Commission, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks review of the circuit court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He contends that the circuit court did not apply the correct law in upholding the Parole Commission’s revocation of his conditional release supervision. We agree and grant the petition.

Soon after being released on conditional release supervision, petitioner was arrested for possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. Although the charges were dismissed, the Parole Commission charged petitioner with violating the conditions of his supervision. After a violation hearing, the parole examiner found that petitioner did not violate the conditions of his supervision and recommended reinstating his conditional release supervision. However, the Parole Commission rejected the examiner’s findings and recommendation and revoked petitioner’s supervision.

Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court. The circuit court denied the petition, holding that sufficient evidence supported the Parole Commission’s finding that petitioner had violated his supervision. Petitioner now argues that the circuit court did not apply the correct law in reaching this determination. In light of our recent opinion in *Tedder v. Florida Parole Commission,*842 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), we agree and quash the circuit court’s order. As in *Tedder,*we remand this case to the circuit court for reconsideration.

BOOTH, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7646

STEVEN E. WARMAN, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

WAYNE PHILIPS, Warden, 

 Respondent – Appellee, 

 and 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, 

 Respondent. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, 

District Judge. (1:08-cv-00217-IMK-JES) 

Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Steven E. Warman, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel W. Dickinson, Jr., 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Steven E. Warman, a federal prisoner, appeals the 

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

(2006) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Warman v. Philips, No. 1:08-cv-00217-

IMK-JES (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 25, 2009) 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