alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT

Rule 328. Compensation and Expenses of Conservator.

(a) A conservator not associated with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel 

shall be compensated [pursuant to a written agreement between the conservator

and the Board Chair. Compensation under such an agreement shall be paid at

reasonable intervals, and] at an hourly rate identical to that received by courtappointed counsel at the non-court appearance rate in the judicial district where the 

conservator was appointed. When the conservator believes that extraordinary 

circumstances justify an enhanced hourly rate, the conservator may apply to the 

Board Chair for enhanced compensation. Such an application shall be granted only 

in those situations in which extraordinary circumstances are shown to justify 

enhanced compensation.

(b) The necessary expenses (including, but not limited to, the fees and 

expenses of certified public accountant engaged pursuant to Enforcement Rule 

324(c)) and any compensation of a conservator or any attendant staff shall, if 

possible, be paid by the absent attorney or his or her estate. Any expenses and any 

compensation of the conservator that are not reimbursed to the Board shall be paid 

as a cost of disciplinary administration and enforcement. Payment of any costs 

incurred by the Board pursuant to this rule that have not been reimbursed to the 

Board may be made a condition of reinstatement of a formerly admitted attorney or 

may be ordered in a disciplinary proceeding brought against the absent attorney.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1416

BERNARD BRIGHT,
Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; QUINCY’S FAMILY STEAKHOUSE; PALMER WORK RELEASE CENTER,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:07-cv-00214-JFA)

Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 24, 2009

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Bright, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Bernard Bright appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying his
request for a refund of the filing fee. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. See Bright v. S.C.
Dep’t of Corr. , No. 3:07-cv-00214-JFA (D.S.C. Apr. 20, 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.

AFFIRMED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: ROBERT W. HUNT, M.D., a

Medic al Corporation,

Debtor.

______________________________

PELI POPOVICH HUNT,

Appellant,

v.

DAVID M. GOODRICH, Chapter 7

Trustee; PETER C. ANDERSON, United

States Trustee,

Appellees. No. 16

- 55679

D.C. No. 2:15

- cv

- 00667

- AG

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2017 **

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUL 5 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 55679

Peli Popovich Hunt appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying

her post

- judgment motions “for rulings on leave to file as a vexatio us litigant and

return of bonds ,” to disqualify the chapter 7 trustee, and for reconsideration. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We affirm.

In the opening brief, Hunt fails to address how the district court e rred in

denying her motions . A s a result, Hunt has waived her challenge to the district

court’s orders. See Smith v. Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n

appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”);

Gree nwood v. FAA , 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“ We review only issues

which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief. ”).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
Cite as 2016 Ark. 282 

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS 

No. D-13-150

STARK LIGON, AS EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR OF THE SUPREME 

COURT COMMITTEE ON 

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

PETITIONER

V.

JOHN SKYLAR (SKY) TAPP

RESPONDENT

Opinion Delivered: June 23, 2016

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE

PORTABLE DOCUMENT FORMAT 

(PDF) COPIES OF THE 

RECORDING IN LIEU OF

ABSTRACT

MOTION GRANTED.

PER CURIAM

John Skylar “Sky” Tapp, through his attorney, Jeff Rosenzweig, has filed a motion 

“to substitute portable document format (PDF) copies of the record in lieu of an abstract.”

In his motion, Tapp states that his disbarment case has produced a record of twenty-seven 

volumes, seventeen of which consist of testimony and three of which contain evidentiary 

depositions. Tapp maintains that this court’s abstracting requirement, see Arkansas Supreme 

Court Rule 4-2(a)(5) (2015), would cause considerable hardship to him and his counsel 

because of the inordinate amount of time and cost associated with the abstracting process. 

We grant Tapp’s motion with the following requirements imposed:

1. The documents must be in PDF format. 

2. The documents must be internally searchable via Optical Character Recognition 

(OCR) that is included in Adobe Acrobat. 
Cite as 2016 Ark. 282 

2 

3. The documents must contain a table of contents, with sections that are internally 

hyperlinked to their respective places in the document. 

Any further questions by the parties should be directed to our clerk for clarification or 

amendment. 

It is so ordered.
Page 1 of 2

1Plaintiff is reminded of his continued obligation to submit monthly installment payments to the court until the

filing fee is paid in full.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

STEPHEN PAUL SEARCY, 

#9601103437

 Plaintiff,

vs. 3:10cv113/LAC/MD

DEPUTY PEARSON #380 and

DEPUTY FLANIGAN #26,.

 Defendants.

O R D E R

This case is before the court upon plaintiff’s amended complaint. Upon review of

the plaintiff’s allegations, it appears that service of this complaint is now appropriate.

Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, he is not responsible for the costs of

service.

1

 However, before service can be ordered, he must submit two service copies of

his amended complaint that are identical to each other and to the amended complaint filed

with the court. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall submit

two identical copies of his amended complaint for service on the defendants. 

2. Failure to timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation of

dismissal of this action. 
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 3:10cv113/LAC/MD

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of May, 2010.

 /s/ Miles Davis

 MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
#### WELLS v. INSURANCE CO.

No. 109 PC.

Case below: 43 N.C. App. 328.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 January 1980.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2392 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2392

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the circumstances 
      under which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall provide 
            reimbursement for emergency ambulance services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 2019

 Mr. Cramer (for himself and Ms. Rosen) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the circumstances 
      under which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall provide 
            reimbursement for emergency ambulance services.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Reimbursement for Emergency 
Ambulance Services Act'' or the ``VREASA''.

SEC. 2. REIMBURSEMENT BY DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FOR EMERGENCY 
              AMBULANCE SERVICES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1725(c) of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(5) In delineating under paragraph (1)(B) the circumstances under 
which reimbursement may be made under this section for ambulance 
services for an individual, the Secretary shall treat such services as 
emergency services for which reimbursement may be made under this 
section if the Secretary determines that the request for ambulance 
services was made as a result of the sudden onset of a medical 
condition of such a nature that a prudent layperson who possesses an 
average knowledge of health and medicine--
            ``(A) would have reasonably expected that a delay in 
        seeking immediate medical attention would have been hazardous 
        to the life or health of the individual; or
            ``(B) could reasonably expect the absence of immediate 
        medical attention to result in placing the health of the 
        individual in serious jeopardy, the serious impairment of 
        bodily functions, or the serious dysfunction of any bodily 
        organ or part.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to ambulance services provided on or after the date 
of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

TRUST FINANCIAL, A MORTGAGE

COMPANY, LLC.

VS CASE NO. 1:10cv49 SPM/GRJ

FORT ATKINSON PLANTATION, LLC.,

et al.

JUDGMENT

This action came before the Court with the Honorable Stephan P. Mickle

presiding. The issues have been heard and a decision has been rendered.

Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff, TRUST FINANCIAL, A MORTGAGE 

COMPANY, LLC, and against defendants, FORT ATKINSON PLANTATION, LLC.,

OWEN B LOVEJOY, FRED J HATFIELD III, MARVIN BUCHANAN, SHERROD

CAMPBELL, HILL BASHAW GROUP LLC, with the exception of Defendant Charles

Sherwood, for attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $91,658.19 with post-judgment

interest as provided by law.

 July 12, 2011

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS

CLERK OF COURT

s/Adelita Tinaya-Miller

DATE Deputy Clerk: Adelita Tinaya-Miller

Case 1:10-cv-00049-SPM-GRJ Document 101 Filed 07/12/11 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DANIEL DAVIS, III,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00069-MP-AK

WALTER A. McNEIL,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and Doc. 4, Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Petitioner’s affidavit of indigency reflects that he does not have sufficient funds to pay the

habeas corpus filing fee, and therefore the motion is due to be granted.

Petitioner failed to provide the Court with two copies of the Petition, which are required 

for service upon the Respondent and the Florida Attorney General. See Rule 3, Rules Governing

§ 2254 Cases. Petitioner must provide the copies before the Court orders a response to the

Petition.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. That Petitioner’s IFP motion, Doc. 4, is GRANTED;

2. That Petitioner shall have until June 11, 2010, to provide the Court with two (2)

service copies of the Petition;
Page 2 of 2

1 Petitioner should note that if he fails to respond to this Order and this case is dismissed, any subsequentlyfiled habeas petition in this Court challenging the same conviction may be barred by the one-year limitation period

for filing a habeas petition in the federal courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Although the one-year period of

limitation is tolled during the time in which a properly filed application for state post- conviction relief is pending,

see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8-9 (2000) (defining when an application is "properly filed" under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(2)), the time in which a federal habeas petition is pending does not toll the one-year limitation period. See

Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001) (holding that an application for federal habeas corpus review does not toll

the one-year limitation period under § 2244(d)(2)).

Case No: 1:10-cv-00069-MP-AK

3. That the failure to comply with this order within the allotted time could result in

the dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an order

of this court.1 

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of May, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
#### STATE v. HENRY CLAY CRAWFORD.

(Filed 15 April, 1964.)

Criminal Law § 108—

Where the court states fully the State’s contentions but fails to state the contention of the defendant that the evidence completely failed to show the intent constituting an essential element of the offense charged, a new trial must be ordered.

Appeal by defendant from *Bickett, J.,*1 September 1963 Criminal Session of Wake.

*659Criminal prosecution on an indictment charging defendant with a felonious breaking and entry with intent to commit larceny, a violation of G.S. 14-54.

Plea: Not guilty. Verdict: Guilty of the felony of breaking and entry.

From a judgment of imprisonment for ten years, defendant appeals.

*Attorney General T. W. Bruton and Assistant Attorney General James F. Bullock for the State.*

*Jacob W. Todd for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

Defendant assigns as error the failure of the trial judge to comply with the provisions of G.S. 1-180, in that after stating fully the contentions of the State, he failed to give equal stress to the contentions of defendant, and particularly to his contention that the State’s evidence did not show any felonious intent to commit larceny.

The State introduced evidence; defendant introduced no evidence. This is a brief summary of plaintiff’s evidence: Mr. and Mrs. Harold Duke own and operate in Raleigh a combination service station, grocery store, and residence. They live in the residence section. Between 10:00 and 10:30 p.m. on 6 July 1963 defendant was seen in the store and residence. Defendant was also seen hanging on a fence on or near the premises as though he were sick or drunk, and a witness called the police. Mrs. Duke testified on cross-examination she thought defendant was a drunken person who got in the house. Panes of glass on the premises 10 by 13 inches in size were broken. Defendant stated to a police officer that someone let him in; later he said he knew nothing about being at the Dukes’ home. On cross-examination the officer testified defendant might have been drinking, and that he was crying. Defendant had no property of the Dukes in his possession when arrested at the scene.

The court stated fully the contentions of the State; the court stated no contentions of defendant. Such a charge does not meet the requirement of G.S. 1-180 as interpreted and applied in our decisions. *S. v. King,*256 N.C. 236, 123 S.E. 2d 486. Certainly, the failure of the court to state the contention of defendant that the State’s evidence completely failed to show that he had a felonious intent to commit larceny was highly prejudicial to defendant. The Attorney General, with his usual fairness, concedes error.

The indictment charges the building was occupied by Harold Duke and the contents therein were his. The evidence seems to show that the building was occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Harold Duke, and that they *660owned the contents therein. Defendant’s counsel made no motion for judgment of involuntary nonsuit.

For error in the charge, defendant is entitled to a

New trial.
Exhibit
99.2








CERTIFICATE
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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-QSB of Plata
Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the six months ended June 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Dexter R.
Caliso, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





1. The
Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15
(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2. The
information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.








July 22,
2008





DEXTER R.
CALISO


Dexter R.
Caliso


Chief
Executive Officer,


President
and Director











-1-
EXHIBIT 32.1


           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
                         RULE 13a-14(b) OR 15d-14(b) AND
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the annual report of Hawksdale  Financial Visions,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for year ended  December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Christina  Escobedo,  President and Chief Executive  Officer and Director of the
Company,  certifies  for the purpose of  complying  with Rule  13a-14(b) or Rule
15d-14(b)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934  (the  "Exchange  Act") and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that:

     1.   the Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

     2.   the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.




Dated: August 24, 2004                    By:  /s/ CHRISTINA ESCOBEDO
                                          _____________________________________
                                          Christina Escobedo
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          and Director
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

STATE OF FLORIDA, by and )

 through BILL McCOLLUM, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

 v. ) Case No. 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )

 OF HEALTH AND HUMAN )

 SERVICES, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For the reasons stated in Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to Exceed Page

Limits, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ memorandum in support of their motion to

dismiss, and Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, shall be no more than 75

pages in length.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: ___________________________________

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT Document 49-1 Filed 06/11/10 Page 1 of 1
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.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# AGENCY:

United States Commission on Civil Rights.

# ACTION:

Correction to notice of briefing.

# Date and Time:

 Friday, November 9, 2007; 9:30 a.m.

# Place:

 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Rm. 540, Washington, DC 20425.

## Corrected Briefing Agenda

                    Discrimination Against Native Americans in Border Towns (On November 1, 2007, a notice was placed in the                     **Federal Register**                     at 72 FR 61858 indicating that the briefing would concern Minorities in Foster Care Adoption. The November 9, 2007 briefing is on Discrimination Against Native Americans in Border Towns.)                

I. Introductory Remarks by Chairman.

II. Speakers' Presentations.

III. Questions by Commissioners and Staff Director.

IV. Adjourn.

# Contact Person for Further Information:

Sock Foon MacDougall, Press and Communications, (202) 376-8582.

Dated: November 1, 2007.

David Blackwood,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 07-5545 Filed 11-1-07; 3:30 pm]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P