alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
57

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION IN THE

OF MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS

OF MARYLAND

Petitioner,

Misc. Docket AG

V. N0.

September Term, 20 7

JEFFREY ADAM WERTKIN

Respondent.

ORDER

This matter came before the Court on the Joint Petition ofthe Attorney Grievance

Commission of Maryland and Respondent, Jeffrey Adam Wertkin, t0 disbar the

Respondent from the practice of law. The Court having considered the Petition, it is this

day of 201 8, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland;

ORDERED, that Respondent, Jeffrey Adam Wertkin, be, and he hereby is, disbarred

from the practice of law in the State 0f Maryland for violation of Rule 8.4(b), (c) and (d)

0f the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules 19-308.4(b), (c) and

(d) of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules 0f Professional Conduct; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk 0f this Court shall remove the name of Jeffrey Adam

Wertkin from the register of attorneys in this Court and certify that fact to the Trustees of

the Client Protection Fund ofthe Bar ofMaryland and all Clerks 0f all judicial tribunals in

this State in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-736(d).

Senior Judge

January

/s/ Clayton Greene Jr.

16th
# L_2007006EN.01000901.xml

| 11.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 6/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 6/9

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 16/2007

of 10 January 2007

on the issue of import licences for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/97 of 27 May 1997 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for high-quality fresh, chilled and frozen beef and for frozen buffalo meat (2),

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 936/97 provides in Articles 4 and 5 the conditions for applications and for the issue of import licences for meat referred to in Article 2(f). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 936/97 provides in Articles 4 and 5 the conditions for applications and for the issue of import licences for meat referred to in Article 2(f).

| (2) | Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 fixes the amount of high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal meeting the definition laid down therein which may be imported on special terms for the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007 at 11 500 t. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 fixes the amount of high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal meeting the definition laid down therein which may be imported on special terms for the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007 at 11 500 t.

| (3) | It should be recalled that licences issued pursuant to this Regulation will, throughout the period of validity, be open for use only in so far as provisions on health protection in force permit, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

It should be recalled that licences issued pursuant to this Regulation will, throughout the period of validity, be open for use only in so far as provisions on health protection in force permit,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   All applications for import licences from 1 to 5 January 2007 for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal as referred to in Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 shall be granted in full.

2.   Applications for licences may be submitted, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 936/97, during the first five days of February 2007 for 6 536,672 t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 January 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 January 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 137, 28.5.1997, p. 10. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1745/2006 (OJ L 329, 25.11.2006, p. 22).

2

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet and income statement, and is qualified in its entirety 
by reference to such financial schedules.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             566
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      431
<ALLOWANCES>                                        14
<INVENTORY>                                        474
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,571
<PP&E>                                           1,590
<DEPRECIATION>                                     563
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,382
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,194
<BONDS>                                            576
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         11
<COMMON>                                            87
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,148
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,382
<SALES>                                            541
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   541
<CGS>                                              296
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      475
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  21
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     57
<INCOME-TAX>                                        21
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 36
<DISCONTINUED>                                     (1)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        35
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .47
        

</TABLE>
# C_2007295EN.01000701.xml

| 7.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4917 — GE/DOGUS/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 295/02)

On 30 November 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4917. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4917. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
# C_2007043EN.01000501.xml

| 27.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 43/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 43/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4463 — AN POST/Fortis/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 43/06)

On 12 January 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4463. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4463. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
# C_2007203EN.01000101.xml

| 31.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4688 — Nestlé/Gerber)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 203/01)

On 27 July 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4688. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4688. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
#### JACK ELMER SUMMERS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7137

December 27, 1974

529 P.2d 207

*Gary A. Sheerin,*State Public Defender, Carson City, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Robert E. Rose,*District Attorney, and *Kathleen M. Wall,*Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

In February, 1969, a jury found appellant guilty of first degree murder and fixed his punishment at death. In June, 1972, the United States Supreme Court held the death penalty, as commonly applied, was unconstitutional. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972). Because of that decision, our district court held a resentencing hearing, and sentenced appellant to life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

Appellant here contends that only a jury could resentence him, and that a presentence investigation report was essential to resentencing..On the basis of our prior decision in Anderson v. State, 90 Nev. 385 (1974), we affirm the district court.
# C_2007092EN.01000601.xml

| 27.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4607 — INM/Providence/CAP II/APN)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 92/11)

On 12 April 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4607. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4607. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
# L_2007245EN.01002101.xml

| 20.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 245/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 245/21

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1081/2007

of 19 September 2007

on the issuing of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of September 2007 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 536/2007 for poultrymeat

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 536/2007 of 15 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of a tariff quota for poultrymeat allocated to the United States of America (2), and in particular Article 5(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 536/2007 opened import tariff quotas for poultrymeat products. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 536/2007 opened import tariff quotas for poultrymeat products.

| (2) | The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of September 2007 for the subperiod 1 October to 31 December 2007 do not cover the total quantity available. The quantities for which applications have not been lodged should therefore be determined and these should be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of September 2007 for the subperiod 1 October to 31 December 2007 do not cover the total quantity available. The quantities for which applications have not been lodged should therefore be determined and these should be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quantities for which import licence applications under quota 09.4169 have not been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 536/2007, to be added to the subperiod 1 January to 31 March 2008, are 8 332 500 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 September 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 September 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 77. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 679/2006 (OJ L 119, 4.5.2006, p. 1).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 128, 16.5.2007, p. 6.

2

---
#### MELBURN DELOS MOTT, Appellant, v. WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, Respondent.

No. 8392

September 29, 1975

540 P.2d 1061

Melburn Delos Mott, in *pro per.*

No appearance, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

In 1972, Melburn Delos Mott after pleading guilty to a charge of burglary (a felony under NRS 205.060) and possession of burglary tools (a gross misdemeanor under NRS 205.-080), was sentenced to a term in the Nevada State Prison. *594Thereafter, in August 1975, he filed an in *pro per*petition in the district court seeking habeas corpus. The thrust of the petition challenged the constitutional validity of the burglary statute.

The district court neither processed the petition nor ordered a return thereto; and, without hearing or appointment of counsel, summarily dismissed the petition. An in *pro per*appeal has been perfected by Mott.

Having reviewed the record we, *sua sponte,*conclude the summary action by the district court constitutes reversible error. A constitutional challenge to the validity of a statute under which a person is incarcerated is a proper subject for habeas corpus. See, for example, Ex Parte Mantell and Raigen, 47 Nev. 95, 216 P. 509 (1923); Ex Parte Medeiros, 57 Nev. 301, 64 P.2d 346 (1937). Cf. Eureka Bank Cases, 35 Nev. 80, 126 P. 655, 129 P. 308 (1912). Accordingly, the district judge should have granted the writ without delay (see NRS 34.390, et seq.; NRS 34.430, et seq.); and, his failure to do so compels us to reverse and remand. The First Judicial District Court, Carson City, is instructed: (1) to issue the writ of habeas corpus forthwith; (2) to order a return thereto; (3) to appoint counsel for appellant; and, (4) pursuant to NRS 34.460, grant an immediate hearing and resolve the allegations set forth in the petition for habeas corpus.

Remittitur shall issue forthwith.
#### STATE v. FOREHAND

No. 17 PC.

Case below: 17 N.C. App. 287.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 6 March 1973.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.T., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Miami, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0023

Issued: April 12, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On October 7, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 19, 2022 nonmerit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards assigned Docket No. 23-0023.

In a letter dated February 1, 2023, and received February 9, 2023, appellant requested that 

the appeal be dismissed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that appellant’s request for the 

dismissal of the appeal should be granted.1 Accordingly, 

1 The Board’s decisions and orders are final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance. 20 

C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the dismissal of the appeal is granted. 

The appeal docketed as No. 23-0023 is dismissed.

Issued: April 12, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
Exhibit 32

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                              18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                              AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                                   SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the quarterly report of Furniture Brands International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David P. Howard,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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 operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 
| | 
| | 
| | 
| | 
| | 
| |
#### WILLIAM HOWARD MARQUETTE, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7216

October 30, 1975

541 P.2d 1099

[Rehearing denied December 12, 1975]

*George H. Spizzirri,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, and *George E. Holt,*District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

*697OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Upon the strength of the admitted killer’s subsequently repudiated, extra-judicial accusation, which the court accepted as substantive evidence by virtue of NRS 51.035(2)(a), appellant stands convicted as a principal in the crime.1 The only issue we need address is whether any substantial evidence corroborates the original accusation of appellant.

In his capacity as a paid private investigator, it appears that a number of days before her paramour was murdered, appellant and his client talked to his client’s wife, urging her to return to the client, Frank Foss. At that time, appellant said such things as: “You had better think it over good. You had better think real hard about going back to Frank Foss for the good of yourself and everyone concerned.” Appellant also helped restrain Mrs. Foss, when she attempted to depart while appellant and his client were talking to her. We have determined that, in light of the acknowledged nature of appellant’s employment, and other facts of record, such conduct cannot be deemed to corroborate adequately the killer’s original accusation of appellant. Taking appellant’s conduct in context, we do not believe his statements may be construed as threats, evincing any involvement in the ultimate death of Mrs. Foss’s friend.

We therefore find no “evidence which in itself, and without *698the aid of the testimony of the accomplice, tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense.” NRS 175.-291(1); cf. Eckert v. State, 91 Nev. 183, 533 P.2d 468 (1975).

The charge against appellant is hereby dismissed, and he is hereby discharged from custody, dismissal to be without prejudice to institution of other criminal proceedings against him. Austin v. State, 87 Nev. 578, 589, 491 P.2d 724, 731 (1971).

1

After agreeing to testify for the prosecution in exchange for the privilege of pleading guilty to second degree murder, and for the dismissal of related charges, the killer recanted his accusation of appellant at trial. The now incumbent District Attorney was not serving in that office when the bargain referred to was entered.