alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1882
JESSE E. BOYER, SR.; MARILYN L. BOYER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus ANNIE LEE FINLEY; ROY FINLEY, Jr.; MICHAEL TAYLOR, Jr.; MICHAEL J. BLITCH; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ROBERT W. POLK, Attorney; ASHLEY SURVEY COMPANY; PATRICK R. WATTS, Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:07-cv-01868-DCN) Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 18, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jesse E. Boyer, Sr., Marilyn L. Boyer, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jesse E. Boyer, Sr., and Marilyn L. Boyer appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing their civil action without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellants’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See Boyer v. Finley , No. 2:07-cv-01868-DCN (D.S.C. Aug. 28, 2007). 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.

DISMISSED
O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Joint Petition for Reprimand filed by the Petitioner, the 

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, and Respondent, Purcell S. Luke, on 

August 29, 2023, in the above-captioned case, in which the parties advise that the 

Respondent agrees that his conduct, as described in the Joint Petition, violated Rules 1.1 

(competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4(a) and (b) (communication), 1.15 (safekeeping 

property), 1.16(d) (declining or terminating representation), 8.1(b) (disciplinary matters) 

and 8.4(d) (misconduct) of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct and 

that the Respondent consents to a reprimand as the appropriate sanction, it is this 1st day 

of September 2023

ORDERED, by the Supreme Court of Maryland, that the Respondent, Purcell S. 

Luke, is REPRIMANDED for violating Rules 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4(a) and 

(b) (communication), 1.15 (safekeeping property), 1.16(d) (declining or terminating 

representation), 8.1(b) (disciplinary matters) and 8.4(d) (misconduct) of the Maryland 

Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct.

 /s/ Michele D. Hotten

 Justice

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE 

COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

v.

PURCELL S. LUKE

*

*

*

*

*

*

 IN THE

 SUPREME COURT

 OF MARYLAND

 AG No. 83

 September Term, 2022
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 66260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21855]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01-05-097]


Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Taunton River, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a 
temporary deviation for the Brightman Street Bridge, at mile 1.8, 
across the Taunton River between Fall River and Somerset, 
Massachusetts. Under this temporary deviation the bridge may remain 
closed from 9 p.m. on December 2, 2005 through 5 a.m. on December 12, 
2005. The purpose of this temporary deviation is to facilitate 
scheduled bridge repairs.

DATES: This deviation is effective from December 2, 2005 through 
December 12, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John McDonald, Project Officer, First 
Coast Guard District, at (617) 223-8364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Brightman Street Bridge has a vertical 
clearance in the closed position of 27 feet at mean high water and 31 
feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations 
are listed at 33 CFR 117.619(b).
    The owner of the bridge, Massachusetts Highway Department, 
requested a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation 
regulations to facilitate scheduled bridge repairs.
    Under this temporary deviation the Brightman Street Bridge may 
remain closed from 9 p.m. on December 2, 2005 through 5 a.m. on 
December 12, 2005.
    This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 
33 CFR 117.35, and will be performed with all due speed in order to 
return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible.

    Dated: October 25, 2005.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05-21855 Filed 11-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-05-1997
<CASH>                                           3,411
<SECURITIES>                                    81,581
<RECEIVABLES>                                   94,047
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     23,959
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               219,366
<PP&E>                                         416,293
<DEPRECIATION>                                 246,439
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 520,060
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          120,552
<BONDS>                                          2,017
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,600
<OTHER-SE>                                     393,891
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   520,060
<SALES>                                        499,550
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               499,550
<CGS>                                          277,081
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  431,354
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               154,273
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 256
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 72,885
<INCOME-TAX>                                    31,025
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             41,860
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    41,860
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.07
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 July 5, 2019

t0705

Order 

Clerk

July 5, 2019

159160

159201

In re HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION

REGARDING CONSTITUTIONALITY OF

2018 PA 368 & 369 SC: 159160

_________________________________________/

In re SENATE REQUEST FOR ADVISORY

OPINION REGARDING CONSTITUTIONALITY

OF 2018 PA 368 & 369 SC: 159201

_________________________________________/

By order of April 3, 2019, the Clerk scheduled these cases for oral argument to be 

held July 17, 2019. The Court respectfully directs the Attorney General to file separate 

supplemental briefs by 5:00 p.m. on July 10, 2019, addressing both sides of the following 

questions: (1) whether this Court has jurisdiction to issue an opinion under Const 1963, 

art 3, § 8 after the effective date of legislation, compare In re 2005 PA 71, 479 Mich 1, 

13 (2007) (“Because the House of Representatives requested an advisory opinion well 

before [the effective] date, this Court indisputably has jurisdiction under art 3, § 8 to 

render an advisory opinion in this matter.”), with 2 Official Record, Constitutional 

Convention 1961, p 3368 (Const 1963, art 3, § 8 “empowers the supreme court to furnish 

advisory opinions . . . only as to legislative acts that are already passed and signed by the 

governor, and before they become effective.”) (emphasis added); and (2) the stare decisis 

effect of In re 2005 PA 71 on this determination, compare Const 1963, art 3, § 8 (“[T]he 

legislature . . . may request the opinion of the supreme court . . . as to the constitutionality 

of legislation . . . .”), with Advisory Opinion on Constitutionality of 1975 PA 227 

(Questions 2–10), 396 Mich 465, 477 (1976) (“An advisory opinion is not precedentially 

binding upon the Court and represents only the opinions of the parties signatory.”).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1462

LONG BEACH MORTGAGE TRUST 2006-6; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL 

TRUST COMPANY, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellees, 

 and 

MARK EDWARD FRUTROVSKY; FISCHER LAW GROUP, PLLC, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

YVONNE DOVE, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:08-cv-02064-PJM) 

Submitted: July 16, 2009 Decided: August 14, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion. 

Yvonne Dove, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Daniel Cohen, BIERMAN 

GEESING & WARD, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Yvonne Dove seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders remanding the case to state court and denying 

reconsideration of that order. Parties are accorded thirty days

after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order 

to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the 

district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” 

Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) 

(quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)); 

accord Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, __, 127 S. Ct. 2360, 

2363-66 (2007). The appeal period is stayed by a motion for 

reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), if filed no 

later than ten days following entry of the judgment. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 59(e); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). An untimely Rule 

59(e) motion, however, does not stay the appeal period. 

Panhorst v. United States, 241 F.3d 367, 370 (4th Cir. 2001). 

The district court’s order remanding the case was 

entered on the docket on December 30, 2008. Dove did not file 

her motion for reconsideration until January 15, 2009, one day 

beyond the expiration of the ten-day period. That motion, 

therefore, did not stay the appeal period. As the notice of 

appeal was filed on April 20, 2009, almost three months beyond 

2 
3 

the expiration of the thirty-day appeal period, and Dove failed 

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we do 

not have jurisdiction to review the district court’s order 

remanding the case to state court. We therefore dismiss this 

portion of the appeal. 

Turning to the district court’s order denying 

reconsideration, Dove has failed to challenge on appeal the 

court’s basis for denying reconsideration. We therefore find 

that Dove has forfeited appellate review of that order. See 4th 

Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

order denying reconsideration of the remand order. 

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 IN PART; 

DISMISSED IN PART
ACCEPTED

01-1400956-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

12/30/2014 12:59:24 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/30/2014 12:59:24 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health

March 05, 2020

Mr. Eugene Scalia
Secretary of Labor
Department of Labor

200 Constitution Ave.
Washington, DC NW 20210

Honorable Secretary Scalia:

On behalf of the Department of Labor Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker
Health, I submit the attached Advisory Board Recommendation that was adopted at the Board's
meeting on January 28, 2020.

We sincerely hope that our advice is useful to the Department. We thank you for the
opportunity to serve as Board members and wish the Program continued success in meeting the
needs of the United States energy employees. Please let us know if there are questions.

Sincerely,
1

Steven Markowitz MD, DrPH

Chair

Advisory Board on Toxic Substances
and Worker Health
# L_2007243EN.01002101.xml

| 18.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 243/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 243/21

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1067/2007

of 17 September 2007

entering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Staffordshire Cheese (PDO))

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and pursuant to Article 17(2) thereof, the United Kingdom’s application to register the name ‘Staffordshire Cheese’ has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and pursuant to Article 17(2) thereof, the United Kingdom’s application to register the name ‘Staffordshire Cheese’ has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | A statement of objection was lodged with the Commission in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. This statement of objection having subsequently been withdrawn, the name should be registered, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A statement of objection was lodged with the Commission in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. This statement of objection having subsequently been withdrawn, the name should be registered,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby registered.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 17 September 2007.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 952/2007 (OJ L 210, 10.8.2007, p. 26).

1

(2)  
  OJ C 148, 24.6.2006, p. 12.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

| Class 1.3. | Cheeses |
| --- | --- |

Class 1.3.

Cheeses

UNITED KINGDOM

Staffordshire Cheese (PDO)

---
SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED
#### Frank MANCHAR, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. ECOLOGY, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-1341.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: March 18, 2005.

Before NEWMAN, MAYER, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: *AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36
EXHIBIT NO. 32.1
The X-Change Corporation
File No. 002-41703
Form 10-Q
Quarter ended June 30, 2011

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                       OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 -
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The X-Change Corporation (Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof  (Report),  I, Haviland  Wright,  Chief
Executive and Acting Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350,  adopted as pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.


Dated: August 19, 2011                        By: /s/ Haviland Wright
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                                 Haviland Wright
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                  Acting Chief Financial Officer

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

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to The  X-Change  Corporation  and will be  retained  by The  X-Change
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1995
<CASH>                                           2,376
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,479
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 468,276
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,810
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        130
<COMMON>                                        52,721
<OTHER-SE>                                     396,616
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   468,276
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,541
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,806
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,734
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             29,734
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,734
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                        WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE TRUSTEE


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the undersigned Trustee of the Journal
Employees' Stock Trust (the "Trust"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge,
that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Trust for the quarter ended
September 30, 2002 (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 Trust.



/s/ Steven J. Smith
------------------------------------
Steven J. Smith
November 14, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 214 (Monday, November 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 67459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22093]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Armed Forces Epidemiological Board; Meeting

AGENCY: Department of the Army; DoD.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Public Law 92-463, 
The Federal Advisory Committee Act, announcement is made of the 
following meeting:
    Name of Committee: Armed Forces Epidemiological Board (AFEB).
    Dates: December 6, 2005 (Open meeting). December 7, 2005 (Open 
meeting).
    Times: 8 a.m.-5 p.m. (December 6, 2005). 8 a.m.-3 p.m. (December 7, 
2005).
    Location: The Pope Club, 5504 Reilly Street, Ft. Bragg, North 
Carolina 28307-5217.
    Agenda: The purpose of the meeting is to address pending and new 
Board issues, provide briefings for Board members on Topics related to 
ongoing and new Board issues, conduct subcommittee meetings. and 
conduct an executive working session.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colonel Roger Gibson, Executive 
Secretary, Armed Forces Epidemiological Board, Skyline Six, 5109 
Leesburg Pike, Room 682, Falls Church, VA 22041-3258, (703) 681-8012/3.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The entire sessions on December 6, 2005 and 
December 7, 2005 will be open to the public in accordance with section 
552b(b) of Title 5, U.S.C., specifically subparagraph (1) thereof and 
Title 5, U.S.C., appendix 1, subsection10(d). Open sessions of the 
meeting will be limited by space accommodations. Any interested person 
may attend, appear before or file statements with the Board at the time 
and in the manner permitted by the Board.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-22093 Filed 11-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5650 

To extend the National Flood Insurance Program to May 31, 2011. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 30, 2010 

Mr. BRADY of Texas (for himself, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. DEUTCH, Mr. YOUNG of 

Florida, Mr. REICHERT, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. 

GRAVES of Missouri, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. SCALISE, 

Mr. OLSON, Ms. JENKINS, and Mrs. CAPITO) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To extend the National Flood Insurance Program to May 

31, 2011. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE 

4 PROGRAM. 

5 (a) PROGRAM EXTENSION.—Section 1319 of the Na6 tional Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2008’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘May 31, 2011’’. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5650 IH

1 (b) FINANCING.—Section 1309(a) of such Act (42 

2 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 

3 2008’’ and inserting ‘‘May 31, 2011’’. 

4 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 this section shall be considered to have taken effect on 

6 February 28, 2010. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS