alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hall, 2015-Ohio-3870.]

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HALL. 

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hall, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2015-Ohio-3870.] 

(No. 2011-1017—Submitted September 23, 2015—Decided September 24, 2015.) 

ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT. 

____________________ 

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an 

application for reinstatement by respondent, Eric Dorman Hall, Attorney 

Registration No. 0067566, last known address in Medina, Ohio. 

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of March 1, 2012, wherein 

the court, pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent from 

the practice of law for a period of twenty-four months with six months stayed, finds 

that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions 

of Gov.Bar R. V(24). 

{¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to 

the practice of law in the State of Ohio. It is further ordered that respondent is 

placed on probation for a period of one year in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21) 

and consistent with the opinion rendered herein on March 1, 2012. 

{¶ 4} It is further ordered that on or before 30 days from the date of this 

order relator shall file with the clerk of this court the name of the attorney who will 

serve as respondent’s monitor, in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21)(A)(3). It is 

further ordered that at the end of respondent’s probationary period, relator shall file 

with the clerk of this court a report indicating whether respondent, during the 

probationary period, complied with the terms of the probation. 

{¶ 5} It is further ordered that at the end of the probationary period 

respondent may apply for termination of probation as provided in Gov.Bar R. 

V(21). It is further ordered that respondent's probation shall not be terminated until 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

(1) respondent files an application for termination of probation in compliance with 

Gov.Bar R. V(21)(D), (2) respondent complies with this and all other orders issued 

by this court, (3) respondent complies with the Rules for the Government of the Bar 

of Ohio, (4) relator files with the clerk of this court a report indicating that 

respondent has complied with the terms of the probation, and (5) this court orders 

that the probation be terminated. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

________________________
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

KEITH LAMONT BURLEY, JR.,

Petitioner

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, LAWRENCE COUNTY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY JOSHUA D. LAMANCUSA,

AND DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATIONS VINCE MARTWINSKI,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 108 WM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19th day of March , 2021, the Application for Leave to File Original

Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.
#### S. E. MESSNER v. F. S. ROYSTER GUANO COMPANY.

(Filed 19 May, 1943.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Hamilton, Special Judge,*at November Extra Term, 1942, of MecKLENBueg. No error.

This was an action to recover damages for negligently discharging water charged with chemicals on plaintiff’s land. On issues submitted the jury answered the first issue in favor of defendant, as follows: “1. Did the defendant negligently operate its plant so as to discharge harmful chemical substances upon property of the plaintiff through artificial drains, and thereby damage plaintiff’s property during the years 1940 and 1941, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: No.” From judgment on the verdict, plaintiff appealed.

*W. T. Shore for plaintiff.*

*Robinson & J ones for defendant.*

*856Pee Oukiam.

Plaintiff’s action was bottomed on negligence. Tbe allegation in tbe complaint was that on account of tbe negligent operation of defendant’s plant and of tbe artificial drains for tbe discharge of water, chemical substances giving off offensive odors were caused to flow on plaintiff’s land, lessening its value. Tbe first issue, submitted without objection, and answered in tbe negative, was determinative of tbe cause of action alleged. No issue was tendered as to nuisance. Trespass was not alleged. Plaintiff brought forward in bis assignments of error several exceptions to tbe judge’s charge. From an examination of tbe record we are left with tbe impression that none of tbe exceptions are sufficient to warrant a new trial. On tbe facts, tbe jury has decided against the plaintiff, and tbe result will not be disturbed.

No error.
Exhibit 99.2



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), the undersigned officer of Cooperative Computing, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify that, to the best of such officers knowledge (i) the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2002 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) the information contained in the
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|By:                                                           |  |  |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|                                                             
|/s/ GREG PETERSEN                                             |  |  |  | 
|Greg Petersen Senior Vice President, Finance & Administration |  |  |  | 





1
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Level of Monthly Benefits

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						B4.1: Increase the number of years used to calculate benefits for retirees and survivors (but not for disabled workers) from 35 to 38, phased in over the years 2024-2028.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
#### James Dunne, Respondent, v. Agassiz Consolidated Mining Company, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### T. J. BASS v. SELIGMAN, WILLIAMS AND BALL, Incorporated.

(Filed 22 February, 1933.)

Appeal by defendant from *Parker, J.,*at December Term, 1932, of CiiowaN.

Civil action to recover damages for alleged breach of timber and hauling contracts.

Upon denial of liability and counterclaim set up by defendant, there was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, from which the defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*J. Fernando White, O. T. Griffin and J. A. Pritchett for plaintiff.*

*L. FI. Griffin and John H. Hall for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

On controverted issues of fact, the jury has responded m favor of the plaintiff. The case seems to have been tried in substantial conformity to the principles of law applicable; and we have discovered no ruling or action of the trial court which we apprehend should be held for reversible error. Even if technical error be conceded, it is regarded as harmless in the light of the whole record. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.
#### EDNA W. BANKS, Executrix, etc., v. NATIONAL ACCIDENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY.

(Filed 22 March, 1933.)

Appeal by defendant from *Frizzelle, J.,*at September Term, 1932, of Pitt.

Civil action to recover on contract of insurance.

Tbe execution of tbe policy was admitted. Tbe defense interposed was, tbat in tbe application tbe assured made false answers to material questions concerning bis health and previous medical attention.

*783IJpon conflicting evidence, tbe issues raised by the pleadings were submitted to the jury and answered in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment on the verdict, from which the defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*S. J. Everett for plaintiff.*

*Prescott, Tyson & Spain for defendant.*

Pee Cubiam.

On controverted issues of fact, the jury has responded in favor of the plaintiff. The case seems to have been tried in substantial conformity to the apposite decisions on the subject and agreeably to the principles of law applicable. *We*have discovered no ruling or action on the part of the trial court which we apprehend should be held for reversible error. Hence, the verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2323
MORRIS R. JORDAN, Petitioner, versus STERLING MINING COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (94-2250-BLA) Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 19, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Morris R. Jordan, Petitioner Pro Se. Mark Elliott Solomons, Laura Metcoff Klaus, ARTER & HADDEN, Washington, D.C.; Patricia May Nece, Jill M. Otte, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision and order affirming the administrative law judge's denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1995). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Jordan v. Sterling Mining Co. , No. 94-2250-BLA (B.R.B. June 22, 1995). 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
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10239, Southwest Community Bank, Springfield, Missouri (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Southwest Community Bank (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

Effective February 01, 2016 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

Dated: February 2, 2016.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2016-03069 Filed 2-16-16; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                        3,840
<SECURITIES>                                  798,780
<RECEIVABLES>                                 9,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              13,340
<PP&E>                                        12,475
<DEPRECIATION>                                (1,220)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                829,490
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         989,802
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      5,832
<OTHER-SE>                                    (250,519)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  829,490
<SALES>                                       279,595
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              279,595
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              590,416
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (310,821)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (310,821)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (310,821)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.05)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 2373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-446]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD


Notice

Summary: The Assassination Records Review Board announces the 
commencement of its formal review of records. On January 3, 1995, the 
staff began the review of the records created by the House Select 
Committee on Assassinations. The Review Board will make determinations 
on postponements for these records during its meeting in late January.

Contact person for more information: David G. Marwell, Executive 
Director, Room 208, 600 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20530, Telephone: 
(202) 724-0088, FAX: (202) 724-0457.
David G. Marwell,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 95-446 Filed 1-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-TD-M
#### WILMA E. FERRELL v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

(Filed 19 September, 1934.)

Trial D b: Insurance P d — Evidence on issue of payment of premium held conflicting, and directed verdict in insurer’s favor was error.

Where tbe right of plaintiff to recover upon a policy of life insurance in which she is named beneficiary is made to depend solely upon whether a premium thereon had been paid, and plaintiff introduces insurer’s receipt therefor, but insurer introduces evidence that the insured’s check given in payment was worthless and was returned to insured upon his written acknowledgment that the receipt had been lost, and plaintiff testifies that the purported signature of insured to the acknowledgment was not genuine: *Held,*the evidence as to payment was conflicting and raised an issue for the jury, and the direction of a verdict in insurer’s favor was error.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Devin, J.,*at May Term, 1934, of Cur-RITUCIC.

Civil action to recover on a $2,000 policy of life insurance.

Upon tbe bearing tbe issuance of tbe policy in suit upon tbe life of plaintiff’s busband, she being named as beneficiary therein, tbe payment of the first semiannual premium on 26 April, 1932, and tbe death of tbe insured on 5 February, 1933, were all admitted. Thereupon, tbe plaintiff offered in evidence an official receipt for tbe semiannual premium due 26 October, 1932, found by her after her husband’s death, and rested. Tbe genuineness of the signature on this receipt was not questioned.

In answer, tbe defendant offered evidence tending to show that tbe semiannual receipt of 26 October, 1932, was issued upon tender of a check which proved to be worthless; that said check was returned to the-assured 18 January, 1933, upon written acknowledgment by him that tbe official semiannual receipt of 26 October, 1932, bad been lost.

In rebuttal, tbe plaintiff testified that tbe purported signature of her busband to said acknowledgment was not genuine.

Tbe court directed a verdict for tbe defendant, and from tbe judgment entered thereon tbe plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.

*G. B. Morris and JoJm II. Hall for plaintiff.*

*Worth & Horner for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.

Tbe plaintiff made out a prima facie case. Tbe defendant offered evidence tending to show that tbe policy in suit lapsed *52for nonpayment of semiannual premium clue 26 October, 1932. The credibility of defendant’s defense was challenged by plaintiff’s denial of assured’s signature to the written acknowledgment. This made it a case for the jury.

There was error in directing the verdict.

New trial.
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Retirement Age

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						C1.1: Starting with those age 62 in 2024, increase the normal retirement age (NRA) 1 month every 2 years until the NRA reaches 68.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
**Exhibit 32.01**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the GoRemote Internet Communications, Inc. QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, I, TomThimot, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge based on a reviewof the Report: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2)the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company forthe period covered by the Report.

 
| Date:  August 9, 2004 | By:    | /s/ TOM THIMOT                          |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|                            |   | Tom Thimot                              |
|                            |   | President & Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to GoRemote Internet Communications, Inc.and will be retained by GoRemote Internet Communications, Inc. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.`

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAFAEL FERGUSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

D. TURNER, C/O for CDCR; et al., 

Defendant-Appellees, 

and 

M. VILLA, Sergeant for CDCR; et al., 

Defendants.

No. 18-17238 

D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00182-AWI-EPG 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2019**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Rafael Ferguson appeals pro se from the district 

* 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

NOV 26 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-17238 

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First and Eighth

Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 

novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) 

(order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ferguson’s claims against the

Calipatria State Prison defendants as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 

See Butler v. Nat’l Cmty. Renaissance of Cal., 766 F.3d 1191, 1198 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(§ 1983 claims are governed by forum state’s statute of limitations for personal 

injury claims); see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (two-year statute of 

limitations for personal injury claims).

The district court properly dismissed Ferguson’s remaining claims because 

Ferguson failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See 

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings 

are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient 

to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009) (a plaintiff must allege facts that “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged”).

AFFIRMED.
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						E3.6: Increase the taxable maximum each year by an additional 2 percent beginning in 2026 until taxable earnings equal 90 percent of covered earnings. Do not provide benefit credit for additional earnings taxed.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1099

PETER R. SUTHERLAND,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

AUTUMN CORPORATION, d/b/a Autumn Care of

Saluda,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District

Judge. (CA-98-270-4-T)

Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 29, 2001

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Peter R. Sutherland, Appellant Pro Se. James Columcille Dever,

III, MAUPIN, TAYLOR & ELLIS, P.A., Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Peter R. Sutherland appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of his former employer, Autumn Corporation, in his civil action alleging retaliatory discharge in

violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42

U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 (West 1995 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Sutherland v. Autumn Corp., No. CA-98-270-4-T (W.D.N.C.

Dec. 14, 2000). Further, we deny Sutherland’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal. 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