alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Joe MARTIN, Jr., Movant, v. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Respondent.

No. 89-SC-549-KBA.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Sept. 7, 1989.

Joe Martin, Jr., Louisville, pro se.

Gardner L. Turner, Chairman Inquiry Tribunal, Raymond Clooney, Bar Counsel, Kentucky Bar Ass’n, Frankfort, for respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

STEPHENS, Chief Justice.

Pursuant to SCR 3.480(2), (3), Joe Martin, Jr. has moved this Court to permit him to resign from the Kentucky Bar Association under terms of disbarment. We agree and grant the motion.

On December 21, 1988, the Inquiry Tribunal of the Kentucky Bar Association filed a five-count charge against Martin alleging unethical and unprofessional conduct as follows:

That he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in the handling of an estate; that he wrote checks payable to cash on the estate and made unsecured cash loans to another client; that he accepted a fee to appeal a decision and that he misrepresented the status of the appeal after the action had been dismissed; that he communicated directly with an adverse party on the subject of representation knowing that the adverse party was represented by counsel and without the consent of that counsel, and that he neglected a legal matter in the representation of a client in a dissolution proceeding. Subsequently, another charge was filed alleging that he engaged in the representation of a criminal defendant while he was under temporary suspension from the practice of law by this Court pursuant to order October 6, 1988.

Martin acknowledges that his conduct as alleged in the charges represents unethical and unprofessional conduct.

Martin shall not be permitted to engage in the practice of law in Kentucky pursuant to SCR 3.020 until such time as the Supreme Court of Kentucky enters an order reinstating his license. He shall not file an application for reinstatement for a period of five years from the date of this order granting his motion to resign. Notwithstanding the five year period mentioned above, he shall not file an application for reinstatement if there is any outstanding claim or judgment against him resulting from his practice of law prior to resignation. Such claims or judgments shall include any from the client’s security fruid of the Kentucky Bar Association.

*520Any application for reinstatement shall be governed by SCR 3.520 or any subsequent amendment thereto. The costs of the investigation initiated by the Inquiry Tribunal and all other disciplinary proceedings shall be paid by Martin in accordance with SCR 3.520(1) and SCR 3.480(3) and the investigation and disciplinary proceedings shall be terminated. Martin shall comply with the provisions of SCR 3.390 regarding notice to all courts in which he has matters pending. He shall also notify all clients in writing of his inability to continue to represent them and shall furnish photostated copies of the letters of notice to the Director of the Kentucky Bar Association.

All concur.
KHAMRON ROBINSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-1898

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 4, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County.

Leandra G. Johnson, Judge.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and WETHERELL and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 105 (Thursday, June 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 29741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11630]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-04-2021]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 22--Chicago, Illinois; Authorization of 
Production Activity, AbbVie, Inc. (Pharmaceutical Products), North 
Chicago and Lake County, Illinois

    On January 27, 2021, AbbVie, Inc., submitted a notification of 
proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facilities within 
Subzone 22S, in North Chicago and Lake County, Illinois.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (86 FR 7989, February 3, 2021). On May 
27, 2021, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that 
no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The 
production activity described in the notification was authorized, 
subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including 
Section 400.14.

    Dated: May 27, 2021.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-11630 Filed 6-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Exhibit 10.2


 


	
   

  	
  W. R. Grace & Co.

  	
  T 410.531-4574

  
	
   

  	
  7500 Grace Drive

  	
  F 410.531-4414

  
	
   

  	
  Columbia, MD 21044

  	
  E fred.festa@grace.com

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  W grace.com

  



 





 


Fred Festa


Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer


 


Personal
and Confidential


 


May 11, 2010


 


Congratulations!  The Grace Board of Directors has approved the
2010 Annual Incentive Compensation Program (AICP) program and you will be
eligible to participate at a target of       % of
your annual base.


 


For
2010, we have aligned the AICP performance metrics with the Annual Operating
Plan (AOP) targets for Adjusted EBIT and Adjusted Operating Cash Flow.  The table below describes those targets.  At the end of the year, a pool will be set
aside for bonus payout based on Grace’s performance.


 


Threshold (80%)


Target (100%)


Maximum (135%)


 


1
– Performance that falls between threshold and maximum is interpolated.


2
– Company reserves the right to change, modify, or terminate compensation and
benefits plans at any time.


3
– Strictly confidential and proprietary information. Disclosure may result in
disciplinary action up to and including termination.


 


Your
payout is based on your individual performance against your stated objectives,
your contribution to the business and overall Grace performance.  Payouts can range from 0-2 times your
target.  In order to receive payment, you
have to be actively employed at the time bonuses are paid, no later than March 15,
2011.


 


Your
contribution, hard work and leadership in living the GRACE Vision and Values
are vital to the overall success of the company.


 


Thank
you for continuing to help build a better and safer Grace.


 


 


	
  

  	
   

  
	
  Alfred E. Festa

  	
   

  
	
  Chairman,
  President and CEO
#### Ayub RUNDI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sherwyn WAYNE, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

No. 58562.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 5, 1991.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 8, 1991.

Application to Transfer Denied May 3, 1991.

*746Elwyn L. Cady, Jr., Independence, for plaintiff-appellant.

Joel D. Monson, Stuart M. Haw, St. Louis, for defendants-respondents.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The trial court did not err: (1) in admitting respondent’s exhibit, a photocopy of a consent form, over appellant’s objection based on the best evidence rule and, (2) in refusing to admit respondent’s exhibits, two written reports of evaluations by an expert witness, into evidence as business records. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 OC Financial, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Diane M. Gregg,
President, and Chief Executive Officer and I, Amanda E. Thomas, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
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, as amended; and

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


Date: May 20, 2008


/s/ Diane M. Gregg
------------------
Diane M. Gregg
President and Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Amanda E. Thomas
--------------------
Amanda E. Thomas
Chief Financial Officer
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7384

DONALD HERRINGTON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of D.O.C. , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. ( 1:19

- cv - 00215

- AJT

- IDD )

Submitted : November 22, 2022 Decided: December 15, 2022

Before KING, WYNN, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Donald Herrington , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7384 Doc: 15 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Donald Herrington seeks to appeal the district court’s o rder denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the p etition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Herrington has no t made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Herrington’s motions to supplement his informal brief, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7384 Doc: 15 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     In connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of W. S.  INDUSTRIES,  INC. (the
"COMPANY")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  November 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "REPORT"),  I,
James F. Dempsey,  President and Chief Executive Officer,  respectively,  of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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, as amended; and

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



Date: January 11, 2010

                                            By: /s/ JAMES F. DEMPSEY
                                                ___________________________
                                                    James F. Dempsey
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5464 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5464

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 18, 2024

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient 
    clinic in Guntersville, Alabama, as the ``Colonel Ola Lee Mize 
                Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''.

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

SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMUNITY-BASED 
              OUTPATIENT CLINIC, GUNTERSVILLE, ALABAMA.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient 
clinic located at 100 Judy Smith Drive, Guntersville, Alabama, shall 
after the date of the enactment of this Act be known and designated as 
the ``Colonel Ola Lee Mize Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''. Any 
reference to such clinic in any law, regulation, map, document, paper, 
or other record of the United States shall be considered to be a 
reference to the Colonel Ola Lee Mize Department of Veterans Affairs 
Clinic.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT
32.1
  CERTIFICATION
OF OFFICERS
 OF
BIO-BRIDGE SCIENCE, INC.
 PURSUANT
TO 18 USC ss. 1350
 
 I, Liang
Qiao, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (a) The
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 of Bio-Bridge
Science, Inc. (the "Company"), fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (b)
Information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
  Date:
      May 17, 2010
              
              /s/ Dr. Liang
      QiaoBy:
      Dr. Liang Qiao
                Chief
      Executive Officer
  I, Chuen
Huei (Kevin) Lee, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (c) The
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 of Bio-Bridge
Science, Inc. (the "Company") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (d)
Information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
  Date:
      May 17, 2010
              
              /s/ Chuen Huei (Kevin)
      LeeBy:
      Chuen Huei (Kevin) Lee
                Chief
      Financial Officer and
                Principal
      Accounting Officer
#### William DWYER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 56650.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Dec. 19, 1989.

Lew A. Kollias, Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

DOWD, Presiding Judge.

Movant pleaded guilty to first degree robbery on October 15, 1984 and was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. Shortly over a year later, movant was transferred to the Delaware Department of Corrections. Movant filed a Rule 27.26 motion for post-conviction relief on March 27, 1989. This motion was dismissed without an evidentiary hearing because it was not filed prior to June 30, 1988 as required by Rule 24.035(Z).

Movant now claims the trial court erred in applying the time limit to him because he had no notice of the change in time limits resulting from the replacement of Rule 27.-26 by Rules 24.035 and 29.15. Thus, he argues application of the time limit violated his rights to due process, habeas corpus and equal protection.

The time limitations of Rule 24.035 are both reasonable and mandatory. *Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989). Movant’s challenge to the application of these time limits boils down to the claim that he did not know about the change in the rules. This argument ignores the well established maxim: ignorantia juris non ex-cusat. Ignorance of the time limitations does not excuse failure to file a timely motion for post-conviction relief; consequently application of the time limits in Rules 29.15 and 24.035 to a defendant convicted when Rule 27.26 regulated post-conviction relief does not violate the rights of due process or equal protection. *Cheek v. State,*776 S.W.2d 66, 68 (Mo.App.1989).

Movant fails to properly explain how denial of his Rule 24.035 motion is an impermissible denial of habeas corpus relief, but even if we characterize his motion as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, this court would have no jurisdiction over denial of the petition. *Id.*

The denial of movant’s Rule 24.035 motion is affirmed.

SIMON, C.J., and JOSEPH J. SIMEONE, Senior Judge, concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6967

THERON JOHNNY MAXTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RICHARD BUNDRICK, Grievance Coordinator; JAMES

SAVAGE, Social Worker, MSU; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MATTOX, Officer, MSU,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph R. McCrorey, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-94-3337-3-6BC)

Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theron Johnny Maxton, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra J. Senn, STUCKEY &

KOBROVSKY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. Appellant's case was referred to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based

upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to

object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
<PAGE>


                                                                     Exhibit 2.1


                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                  -----------------------------------------


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by 
reference in this Form 20-F of our Report dated February 18, 1998, and to the 
incorporation of our reports included and incorporated by reference to this 
Form 20-F, into the Company's previously filed Registration Statement on Form 
S-8, File No. 33-85168, and of our report dated November 10, 1997 on the 
financial statements of Seaway Heavy Lifting Limited. It should be noted that 
we have not audited any financial statements of the Company subsequent to 
November 30, 1997 or performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date of 
our report.


                                              ARTHUR ANDERSEN


Glasgow, Scotland
May 28, 1998
#### Ronald W. BARRETT, Defendant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent.

No. 67064.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 3, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 8, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied Dec. 19, 1995.

Dave Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the motion court’s judgment, after an evidentiary hearing, denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).