alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Movant, v. Edwin C. LESTER, Respondent.

No. 89-SC-000570-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Dec. 21, 1989.

OPINION AND ORDER

STEPHENS, Chief Justice.

The Kentucky Bar Association, as a result of charges instigated against the respondent, has recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky for a period of six (6) months. He was found to be guilty of violation of the cannons of professional ethics by neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him by a client, of damaging or prejudicing a client during the course of a professional relationship and by conducting himself in a manner tending to bring the bench and bar into disrepute.

Neither the Bar Association nor the respondent requested a review, but this court, on its own motion, elected to review the question of whether the respondent was properly notified of the charges and given an opportunity to defend himself against them. The respondent did not make an appearance and he did not defend the charges.

A copy of the charges was mailed to the respondent at 2009 West Broadway, Louisville, Kentucky, his last known address, by registered mail, return receipt requested. The return receipt showed that the envelope was accepted by Seleila R. Booker, secretary. The deposition of Seleila Booker was taken, and she stated that:

*5181. Respondent kept an office at 2009 West Broadway, Louisville, Kentucky.

2. She was his secretary.

3. She received and signed for the envelope mailed to the respondent by the Kentucky Bar Association.

4. She placed the envelope in a mail box or slot maintained within the office for the respondent’s mail.

5. Respondent checked his mail box frequently.

6. The envelope for the Kentucky Bar Association did not remain in his mail box for any appreciable length of time.

From the foregoing, we have no hesitancy in indulging the presumption that the respondent received the charges which were shown to be placed in the United States mail, properly addressed and stamped, and delivered to him at his last known address.

Upon our review of the record we find that the evidence adequately supports the findings and recommendation of the Kentucky Bar Association, and we adopt its recommendations

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

That the respondent, Edwin C. Lester, be, and he is hereby, suspended from the practice of law in Kentucky for a period of six (6) months, and until such further time as he is reinstated to the practice of law by order of this court pursuant to SCR 3.510.

The respondent is directed to pay the costs of this action.

Pursuant to SCR 3.390, the respondent shall, within ten (10) days from the date of the entry of this order, notify all clients in writing of his inability to represent them and to furnish photostatic copies of said letters of notice to the director of the Kentucky Bar Association.

All concur.
Exhibit
32.1




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 China Health Industries Holdings, Inc. a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“Report”), I, Xin Sun , Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350), that to my knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





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




/s/
      Xin SunXin
      SunChief
      Executive OfficerDate:  May
      14, 2009
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 128170(66) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 128170 

 COA: 248540 

Jackson CC: 02-006612-FC 

SHAWN LYNN SALYERS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's order of 

February 27, 2006 is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the 

order was entered erroneously. 

d0522 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

May 30, 2006 

Clerk
NO. 07-04-0513-CR

	NO. 07-04-0514-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL E

	MARCH 17, 2005

	______________________________

	GUSTAVO RAMIREZ, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

	NO. B15475-0404 & 15478-0404; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ. and BOYD, S.J.1

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Pursuant to pleas of guilty, appellant Gustavo Ramirez was convicted of aggravated sexual assault in cause number B15475-0404 and sentenced to 12 years confinement and a $2,000 fine and convicted of burglary in cause number B15478-0404 and sentenced to two years confinement and a $1,000 fine.   

	The clerk’s records in these appeals reflect that the trial court entered certifications of defendant’s right to appeal in which it certified these cases were plea bargain cases with no right of appeal.  By letter dated February 16, 2005, this Court notified appellant that the certifications indicate no right of appeal and requested a response by March 7, 2005, noting that failure to file amended certifications showing a right of appeal or failure to provide other grounds for continuing the appeals would result in dismissal.  See Tex. R. App. 25.2(a)(2) & (d); see also Stowe v. State, 124 S.W.3d 228, 232 (Tex.App.–El Paso 2003, no pet.).  Appellant did not respond and no amended certifications indicating a right to appeal have been filed in a supplemental record.  Thus, we dismiss these appeals.

	Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.2

						Don H. Reavis

						    Justice

Do not publish.
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit
4.1

     

    FIRST
AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT

     

    THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (“First Amendment”) is dated as
of May 7, 2010, and amends that certain Rights Agreement dated as of May 18,
2009 (the “Rights
Agreement”), between Houston Wire & Cable Company, a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), and American Stock
Transfer & Trust Company, LLC, a New York limited liability trust company,
as Rights Agent (the “Rights
Agent”).

     

    W
I T N E S S E T H

     

    WHEREAS, the Company and the
Rights Agent entered into the Rights Agreement;

     

    WHEREAS, under Section 27 of
the Rights Agreement, for so long as the Rights are redeemable, the Company may
supplement or amend the Rights Agreement without the approval of any holders of
certificates representing Common Stock and Rights (as defined in the Rights
Agreement);

     

    WHEREAS, the Rights are still
redeemable; and

     

    WHEREAS, the Company desires
to amend, and directs the Rights Agent to amend, the Rights Agreement as
provided in this First Amendment.

     

    NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the promises and the mutual agreements set forth in this First
Amendment, the parties hereto agree as follows:

     

    SECTION 1. Amendment to
Definitions.  The definition of “Final Expiration Date”
contained in Section 1 of the Rights Agreement is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:

     

    “Final Expiration Date” means
the close of business on May 7, 2010.

     

    SECTION 2.  Effectiveness.  The
First Amendment shall be effective as of May 7, 2010.

     

    SECTION 3.  Counterparts.  This
First Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such
counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original, and all such
counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument.

     

    


     

    [Remainder of page intentionally left
blank]

     

    
      
         

      

      
         

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to be duly
executed by their respective authorized officers as of the day and year first
above written.

     

    
      
        	 
      	 
      	
                HOUSTON
      WIRE & CABLE COMPANY

              
	 
      	 
      	
                By:

              	
                 

                /s/ Nicol G. Graham

              
	 
      	 
      	 
      	
                Name:  Nicol
      G. Graham

                Title:  Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer

                 

              
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	
                AMERICAN
      STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY, LLC, as Rights
Agent

              
	 	 	 
	 
      	 
      	
                By:

              	
                /s/ Herbert J. Lemmer

              
	 
      	 
      	 
      	
                Name:  Herbert
      J. Lemmer

                Title:  Vice
      President
#### Ann RICHARDS, Governor of Texas, et al., Appellants, v. LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS (LULAC) et al., Appellees.

No. D-2197.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 30, 1993.

Javier Aguilar, Houston, Dan Morales, Richard E. Gray, III, Roger Moore, Austin, for appellants.

Norma V. Cantu, Albert H. Kauffinan, San Antonio, Donald Branson, Brownsville, Guadalupe T. Luna, San Antonio, Brian Ganson, Brownsville, Judith Sanders-Castro, San Antonio, Susan Brown, Antonio Hernandez, E. Richard Larson, San Francisco, CA, Aurora De La Garza, Brownsville, Yolanda L. Garza, San Benito, John F. Hood, Benjamin Euresti, Brownsville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is a direct appeal from a trial court judgment declaring the Texas system of higher education unconstitutional and enjoining the Governor, the Commissioner of Higher Education, various state university regents, and other entities from giving force and effect to those portions of the Education Code and the appropriation acts relating to financing of public universities and professional schools, from distributing, using, or dedicating funds from various specified sources, and from financing any permanent improvements under the Education Code, except as specifically excepted. By the terms of the judgment, its injunctive provisions did not go into effect until May 1, 1993, in order to allow defendants to appeal and, if unsuccessful, to allow the Legislature to enact corrective legislation. Counsel for the Governor and various state entities and officials have brought to our attention concerns raised on behalf of the University of Texas and Texas A & M Systems, about their inability to proceed with debt issues and replacement of interim financing, due to uncertainties caused by the order, even if the order is superseded, as it presumably is, during the pendency of this appeal. Counsel asks this Court to grant relief to ensure that the bonding efforts of the Universities can continue unimpeded. We grant this request. To protect our jurisdiction pending a ruling on the merits of the case, all injunctive relief granted by the trial court in its judgment of January 20, 1992, is stayed pending further order of the Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5278 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5278

  To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit executive branch 
    officials from engaging in election interference, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 25, 2023

   Mr. Lieu (for himself, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Swalwell, Ms. 
   Jayapal, and Ms. Norton) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit executive branch 
    officials from engaging in election interference, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Preventing Presidential Election 
Interference Act''.

SEC. 2. INTERFERENCE BY EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS AND GOVERNMENT 
              EMPLOYEES.

    Section 595 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in the section heading, by inserting ``a President or 
        Vice President or'' before ``administrative employees'';
            (2) by inserting ``a President or Vice President, or'' 
        before ``a person employed''; and
            (3) by striking ``or imprisoned not more than one year,'' 
        and inserting ``or imprisoned not more than 3 years,''.

SEC. 3. COERCION OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY.

    Section 610 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting after ``for any person'' the following: ``, including a 
President or Vice President,''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19571]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9682]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-475-815]


Postponement of Final Countervailing Duty Determination: Small 
Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and 
Pressure Pipe (``Seamless Pipe'') From Italy

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 19, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Wilkniss, Office of 
Countervailing Investigations, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room B099, 
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; 
telephone: (202) 482-0588.

POSTPONEMENT: On December 23, 1994, we aligned the final countervailing 
duty determination in this investigation with the final antidumping 
duty determination in the companion antidumping investigation of 
seamless pipe from Italy (59 FR 66296).
    On February 16, 1995, we postponed the final antidumping 
determination in the companion antidumping investigation of seamless 
pipe from Italy until no later than June 12, 1995 (60 FR 9012).
    Therefore, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended, the final countervailing duty determination in 
this investigation will also be postponed until no later than June 12, 
1995.
    The case briefs in this countervailing duty investigation are now 
due no later than May 2, 1995, and rebuttal briefs no later than May 7, 
1995. We will not hold a public hearing in this investigation, because 
none of the interested parties requested a hearing.
    This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 355.20(c)(3) 
(1994).

    Dated: April 13, 1995.
Barbara R. Stafford,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Investigations.
[FR Doc. 95-9682 Filed 4-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6467

Western Diversified Plastics, LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 17, 2015

N o. 0 4

- 15

- 00760

- CR

Eddie ARRIOLA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR2717

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

P ursuant to a ple a agreement with the State, appellant pleaded nolo contendere to the

offense of indecency with child

- contact (repeater)

. The trial court imposed a sentence in the case in accordance with the agreement and signed a certificate stating this “ [ is ] a plea

- bargain case,

and the defendant has NO right of appeal. ” See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant timely

filed a notice of appeal. The clerk ’ s record, which include s th e trial court ’ s r ule 25.2(a)(2)

certification and written plea bargain agreement, ha s been filed. See id. R. 25.2(d). This court

must dismiss an appeal “ if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not

been made part of the rec ord. ” Id

.

The clerk ’ s record establish es the punishment assessed by the court in this case does not

exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id.

R. 2 5.2(a)(2). The record also appear s to support the trial court ’ s certification that state s appellant does not have a right to appeal in either case

. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals should review clerk ’ s record to determine

whether tr ial court ’ s certification is accurate).Appellant is hereby given notice that th is appeal will be dismissed pursuant to r ule

25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless amended certification s showing that

appellant has the right to appeal in this case is made part of the appellate record on or before

January 18, 2016

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex.

App.

— San Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits , No. 04

- 03

- 00176

- CR, 2003 WL 21508347

(July 2, 2003, pet. ref ’ d) (not designated for publication).

We order all appellate deadlines suspended until further order of the court. We further

order the clerk of this court to serve copies of this order on the attorneys of record and the court

reporter.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 17th day of December, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------


    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 SpeechSwitch, Inc. (the
"COMPANY"), on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, I, Bruce R.
Knef, hereby certify, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 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:

     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.



                                          By: /s/ Bruce R. Knef
                                              ----------------------------
                                              Bruce R. Knef
                                              President
                                              Chief Executive Officer and
                                              Chief Financial Officer


                                          May 15, 2008
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6906

BorgWarner Emissions Systems:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel