alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert P. CARTER, Movant, v. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Respondent.

No. 95-SC-721-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Oct. 19, 1995.

*779Robert P. Carter, Louisa, for Movant.

Bruce K. Davis, David B. Pearce, Kentucky Bar Association, Frankfort, for respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

On September 19,1994, the Inquiry Tribunal of the Kentucky Bar Association charged movant, Robert P. Carter, with three counts of professional misconduct arising out of his representation of one client regarding a real estate transaction and with two counts of professional misconduct arising out of his representation of another client with respect to an adoption proceeding.

During his representation in the adoption proceeding, Carter violated SCR 3.130-1.3 by failing to file a correct petition for the adoption of his clients’ grandson with reasonable promptness. Part of the delay was due to Carter’s lack of familiarity with a change in the adoption laws. The delay was further compounded by a contentious relationship between Carter and his wife/office manager, which ultimately resulted in divorce. Carter also violated SCR 3.130-1.4 by failing to adequately communicate with his clients in the adoption proceeding.

Carter has acknowledged that his conduct violated SCR 3.130-1.4(a) and SCR 3.130-3.3(a)(3). Carter does not acknowledge engaging in the conduct described in the other charge against him, arising out of representation regarding a real estate transaction. He has requested that the two disciplinary proceedings now pending against him be terminated by a 59-day suspension for his violation of the applicable standards of professional conduct.

The Kentucky Bar Association has offered no objection to the proposed sanction and termination of the two disciplinary proceedings. Having reviewed the record, we grant Carter’s “Motion to Resign under Terms of a 59 Day Suspension.” We consider this to be a motion for a 59-day suspension.

It is hereby ordered that Robert P. Carter is suspended from the practice of law for 59 days from the date of entry of this order. The disciplinary proceedings against Carter in KBA Files 4479 and 4523 are hereby terminated. Carter has tendered payment of $232.75 as full payment of the disciplinary costs in accordance with SCR 3.450(1).

All concur.

ENTERED: October 19, 1995

/s/ Robert F. Stephens’

Chief Justice
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0542

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

FRANK WEBB,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 29, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 23 2023

10/23/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0542
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Samuel HILLS, Appellant. Samuel HILLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 64206.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 21, 1995.

Emmett D. Queener, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

*822Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Samuel Hills, appeals from a jury trial conviction of the class B felony of delivery of a controlled substance, RSMo § 195.211 (Cum.Supp.1990), entered by the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis and for which appellant was sentenced as a class X offender to twelve years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. Appellant also appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of the circuit court is not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b). A memorandum solely for the use the parties here involved has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                SAVWATT USA, INC.
                             A Delaware Corporation
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SavWatt USA, Inc. ("Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Isaac H. Sutton,
President and Chief Financial Officer, 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; 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: September 22, 2010                  /s/  Isaac H. Sutton
                                           -------------------------------------
                                      By:  Isaac H. Sutton
                                      Its: President and Chief Financial Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)
                                           (Principal Financial Officer)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CR-18-00422-001-PHX-SMB

ORDER 

The Government has filed a motion in limine to preclude the Davis Wright Tremaine 

(“DWT) law firm from serving as trial counsel or engaging in any trial preparation. (Doc. 

906.) Defendants Lacey and Larkin filed a response. (Doc. 963.) The Government has 

previously sought to have DWT disqualified based on its past representation of Carl Ferrer. 

(Doc. 118.) After having that motion briefed and hearing oral argument, Judge Logan 

denied the motion. (Doc. 338.) Judge Logan found that “Carl Ferrer (“Ferrer”) expressly 

waived his right to seek disqualification of HCM and DWT in previous joint representation 

and joint defense agreements.”. (Id. at 1.) Judge Logan also said that he would “rely on the 

representations of HCM, DWT, and their respective counsel that the firms will continue to 

preserve the confidences of Ferrer as a former client, create ethical walls where necessary, 

refrain from engaging in trial preparation or participating as trial counsel, and only 

participate in the limited capacity set forth in the pleadings, without an order from the 

Court.” (Id. at 10.)

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1078 Filed 10/26/20 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants response argues that this is another attempt to disqualify DWT and 

should be denied because Judge Logan already ruled on this issue. Defendants ignore the 

statement quoted above and cited by the Government wherein Judge Logan said that he 

would hold DWT to their representations not to participate as trial counsel or engage in 

trial preparation. Defendants also ignore that they represented to Judge Logan that 

“DWT’s role is not and never has been to act as criminal trial counsel for Larkin or Lacey.” 

(Doc. 180 p. 28.)

The Government also raises an issue about precluding Defendants from discussing 

or relying on any previous case in which Backpage was involved, and Defendants respond 

to this issue. However, the relief sought by the Government only related to precluding 

DWT from participating in the trial or trial preparation, so the Court will not address the 

admissibility of information relating to other cases.

IT IS ORDERED granting the Government’s Motion in Limine (Doc. 906.) as it 

seeks to enforce the parties’ representations and Judge Logan’s previous ruling.

Dated this 26th day of October, 2020.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1078 Filed 10/26/20 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-3011

LAUNEIL SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versusRAYTHEON ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS, INCORPORATED, a subsidiary of the Raytheon Company, registered agent of Raytheon Engineers andConstructors, Incorporated, Prentice-Hall Corporation, 2019 Park Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-49-6-3AK) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 28, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Launeil Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Bernard Lindemann, Stephen Floyd Fisher, JACKSON, LEWIS, SCHNITZLER & KRUPMAN, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. 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 complaint alleging age discrimination, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-634 (West 1985 & Supp. 1995). Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The magistrate judgerecommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waiveappellate 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 grant Appellee's motion for summary affirmance. As we conclude that the appeal is frivolous, we also grant Appellee's motion for double costs, Fed. R. App. P. 38, but deny the motion for attorney's fees. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 1142

RICHARD MAINA KIHARA

,

Petitioner

,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : July 18, 2017 Decided: September 6, 2017

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Madeline Henley, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding pre cedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Richard Maina Kihara, a native and citizen of Kenya , petitions for review of an

order of the Board of Immigra tion Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen. We

have reviewed the administrative record and Kihara ’s claims, and conclude that the

Board did not abu se its discretion in denying his motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a)

(2017 ); Mosere v. Mukasey , 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we deny

the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Boar d. See In re Kihara (B.I.A.

Jan. 4, 2017 ). 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.

PETITION DENIED
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Brand Medical Supply, Inc., as Assignee of VLADIMIR JEAN, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Infinity Ins. Co., Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from a decision of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), dated April 18, 2013, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered May 30, 2014 (see CPLR 5512 [a]). The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,150.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the Civil Court, following a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff judgment in the principal sum of $1,150. </p><p>For the reasons stated in <i>Brand Med. Supply, Inc., as Assignee of Steven Thomas v Infinity Ins. Co.</i> (— Misc 3d &amp;mdash, 2016 NY Slip Op — [appeal No. 2014-2032 K C], decided herewith), the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.</p><p>Weston, J.P., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: May 05, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DANIEL SHACKS,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.

 08-CV-13981

vs.

 PAUL D. BORMAN

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Defendant.

______________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

On October 21, 2009, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he recommends that Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment be granted and that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. No objections

have been filed, and the time to do so has expired. This Court has had an opportunity to fully review

this matter and finds that Magistrate Judge Whalen has reached the proper conclusions for the proper

reasons. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Whalen’s R&R dated October 21, 2009, is accepted

and adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [docket entry

13] is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [docket entry

2:08-cv-13981-PDB-RSW Doc # 18 Filed 12/15/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 374
2

16] is granted.

S/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: December 15, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

December 15, 2009.

S/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-13981-PDB-RSW Doc # 18 Filed 12/15/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 375
Exhibit 32
  CERTIFICATION
    OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO
    18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
    SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  Form 10-Q
  (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.  Jeff
    Clarke
   Chief Executive Officer
   Philip
    Emery
   Chief Financial Officer
  47
#### Ramaiah P. MADDIPATI and Sreedevi Maddipati, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Russell J. BUCARO and Ann L. Bucaro, Defendants/Appellants.

No. 66238.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Feb. 21, 1995.

Joseph E. Cordell, Cordell & Cordell, P.C., Clayton, for appellants.

Kathryn B. Davis, Davis & Weisman, P.C., St. Louis, for respondents.

Before SMITH, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and WHITE, JJ.

*MEMORANDUM DECISION*

PER CURIAM.

Defendants appeal from the entry of a summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor in plaintiffs’ suit for unlawful detainer. Defendants’ only defense is a challenge to the validity of plaintiffs’ title. Issues relating to title cannot be interposed as a defense in unlawful detainer cases. *Meier v. Thorpe,*822 S.W.2d 556 (Mo.App.1992) [1]; Sec. 534.210 RSMol994. The judgment is supported by substantial evidence and no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance






Exhibit 10.6




THIRD AMENDMENT TO DARK FIBER IRU AGREEMENT



This Third Amendment (“Third Amendment”) to the May 8, 1997 Dark Fiber IRU Agreement between
Metropolitan Fiber Systems of New York, Inc.
(“MFS”), and RCN Telecom Services, Inc. (“RCN”), as
successor-in-interest to RCN Telecom Services of New York, Inc. (“the Agreement”) is entered into
this 7th day of November, 2008.



1) This Third Amendment modifies and supplements the Relinquished Fiber Process and
Timeframe as set forth in Section 5 of the December 11, 2007 First Amendment (“First
Amendment”) to the Agreement and Section 2 of the June 18, 2008 Second Amendment
(“Second Amendment”).



2) The parties acknowledge they have been working collaboratively and in good faith in
connection with completing the Relinquished Fiber Project Plan as contemplated by
Section 5 of the First Amendment. Despite these good faith efforts, the parties have not
been able to complete the project in the time frames contemplated by the First
Amendment. As a result, MFS and RCN agree to delete Section 5(a) of the First
Amendment and replace it with the following:




“5(a) The parties shall cooperate and work together in good faith in order to help ensure
the Relinquished Fibers have been returned by RCN to MFS and are fully accessible and
capable of being used by MFS by March 31, 2009. This completion deadline can be extended
only by the written agreement of both parties.”



3) The
parties agree that their respective operations teams will meet and confer within a
reasonable time from the date of this Third Amendment, and will revise, refine and
update the Relinquished Fiber Project Plan. The parties will continue to work
collaboratively in an effort to complete the Project as quickly as possible.



4) Section 5(b) of the First Amendment shall continue to apply to the Relinquished Fiber
Process and Timeframe according to the revised timeframes set out
herein.



5) Except as expressly set forth in this Third Amendment, all the terms and conditions set
forth in First and Second Amendments and the Agreement remain in full force and effect.


 


 









 





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Third Amendment to be executed as of the date
first set forth above by their duly authorized representatives.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	METROPOLITAN FIBER SYSTEMS OF NEW 

YORK, INC.	 	 	 	RCN TELECOM SERVICES, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ Thomas F. Meagher
	 	 	 	By:  	/s/ Richard P. Swiderski 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Name:  

	Thomas F. Meagher
	 	 	 	 	Name:  
	Richard P. Swiderski
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Title:

	Director
	 	 	 	 	Title:
	VP — Network Engineering
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Date:

	12/1/08
	 	 	 	 	Date:
	11/18/08
exh10-2d.htm


    
      EXHIBIT
10.2(d)

      


      AMENDMENT NO.
1

      TO THE

      AMENDED AND RESTATED
CENTURYTEL, INC.

      2002 DIRECTORS STOCK OPTION
PLAN

      


      WHEREAS,
CenturyTel, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the CenturyTel, Inc. 2002 Directors
Stock Option Plan, as amended and restated (the “Plan”);

      


      WHEREAS,
pursuant to Section 10 of the Plan, the Plan may be amended by the Board of
Directors of the Company (the “Board”) at any time; and

      


      WHEREAS,
the Board has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company to
amend the Plan as set forth below.

      


      NOW,
THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

      


         
1.         Section
8.2 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated, in its entirety, as
follows:

       

                    
 8.2     Upon a
Change of Control, all outstanding Options granted pursuant to this Plan shall
automatically become fully vested and exercisable.

      


          2.        
Except as herein expressly amended, the Plan shall continue in full force and
effect.

      


      IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this amendment on this 24th day of
October, 2008.

    

     

     

     

     

    
      	 
      	
              CENTURYTEL,
      INC.

            
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
              By:/s/  R.
      Stewart Ewing, Jr.         
      

            
	 
      	
                   R.
      Stewart Ewing, Jr.

            
	 
      	
                   Executive
      Vice President and

            
	 
      	
                   Chief
      Financial Officer
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Cornelius Hofman, President, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Way Cool Imports, Inc., (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2010 (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 78 o(d)); 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: July 30, 2010  /s/ Cornelius Hofman Cornelius Hofman President and Chief Executive Officer Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to Way Cool Imports, Inc. and will be retained by Way Cool Imports, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 of Manhattan Bancorp (the “Company”).

 

I, Dean Fletcher, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.             The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

 

2.             The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements included in such reports.

 

 
| Dated: May 13, 2008 |                          |
|--------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                     |                          |
|                     |                          |
|                     | /s/  Dean Fletcher            |
|                     | Dean  Fletcher                |
|                     | Executive  Vice President and |
|                     | Chief  Financial Officer      |

 

----