alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[685 NYS2d 614]

#### In the Matter of Abbot N. Solomon (Admitted as Abbot Neil Solomon), an Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department,

March 25, 1999

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Richard M. Maltz*of counsel *(Thomas J. Cahill,*attorney), for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

*231OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent Abbot N. Solomon was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on July 27, 1987 as Abbot Neil Solomon. On or about September 22, 1997, respondent pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering (18 USC § 1956 [h]), a felony. Pursuant to an amended judgment entered in that court on May 26, 1998, respondent was sentenced to a term of 18 months’ incarceration followed by 36 months of supervised release, and restitution in the amount of approximately $1.4 million.

Respondent submits his resignation pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.11. In his affidavit of resignation dated December 8, 1997, respondent admitted to the facts underlying his conviction, which he averred did not implicate the practice of law. He admitted his participation in a scheme with two others, one an employee of a major corporation, whereby the employee would order goods at inflated prices from a company identified as Gala Enterprises, and the conspirators would share the proceeds among themselves. In a separate letter dated June 4, 1998, respondent conceded that he pleaded guilty to the criminal charge insofar as he could not defend it on the merits. By motion dated June 29, 1998, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee (DDC) moved to accept respondent’s resignation from the Bar. By order entered September 22, 1998 (253 AD2d 687), we denied the motion, finding respondent’s affidavit, which omitted acknowledgment of the disciplinary investigation and acknowledgment that if disciplinary charges were based on his misconduct, he could not successfully defend himself on the merits against such charges, to be technically inadequate (22 NYCRR 603.11 [a] [2], [3]).

By letter dated December 17, 1998, respondent acknowledged that there was a pending disciplinary investigation arising from the Federal charge, constituting unprofessional conduct, that he was guilty in fact, and as such could not successfully defend himself on the merits. The letter concluded with a simultaneous resignation from the New York Bar.

By motion dated January 13, 1999, DDC moved again for an order accepting respondent’s resignation. Since respondent has now fully complied with disciplinary requirements as articulated in our prior order, the motion should be granted, and *232respondent’s resignation accepted nunc pro tunc to September 22, 1997, the date respondent pleaded guilty to the Federal felony.

Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ., concur.

Motion granted, resignation by respondent accepted, and the name of respondent stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York nunc pro .tunc to September 22, 1997.
#### ALBIN v. HARVEY & JONES et al.*

No. 4975.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

April 1, 1935.

L. L. Morgan and E. R. Stoker, both of Baton Rouge, for appellants.

H. W. Ayres, of Jonesboro, for appellee.

*

Rehearing granted May 2, 1936.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

The record in this case contains no order of appeal, nor motion or petition therefor. Without an order of the court a quo granting an appeal to this court, we are without jurisdiction to consider the case to any extent. Therefore, we are constrained to take notice of the situation and dismiss the appeal. Sullivan v. Tremont & Gulf Ry. Co., 4 La. App. 358; Gagneaux v. Desonier, 104 La. 648, 29 So. 282; Sammons v. N. O. Ry. & Light Company, 143 La. 731, 79 So. 320.

Appeal dismissed.
|                                                                                                                                                                    |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/      Kevin L. Foxx                                                                                                                                             |
| Kevin      L. Foxx                                                                                                                                                      |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer ofSemGroup      Energy Partners G.P., L.L.C.,general partner of SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. |
|                                                                                                                                                                    |

|                                                                                                                                                                    |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/      Alex G. Stallings                                                                                                                                         |
| Alex      G. Stallings                                                                                                                                                  |
| Chief      Financial Officer and Secretary ofSemGroup      Energy Partners G.P., L.L.C.,general partner of SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. |
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40857

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN ANDRES ORTEGA-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:09-CR-966-1

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Andres 

Ortega-Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ortega-Garcia has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 14, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-40857 Document: 00512629991 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/14/2014
No. 13-40857

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-40857 Document: 00512629991 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/14/2014
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 627 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 627

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                coastwise trade for the vessel TECUMSEH.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 20, 1995

Mr. McDermott introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                coastwise trade for the vessel TECUMSEH.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the 
Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 
46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel TECUMSEH (Canadian 
registry number 815298).
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.1


                            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 Annual Audit of Golden Phoenix Minerals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the
Company.


------------------------------------
Steven D. Craig
Chairman of the Board


------------------------------------
William Thomas
Chief Financial Officer


                                     31.1-1
#### Joseph Dean, Respondent, v. The General Accident Assurance Corporation, Limited, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except McLennan, P. J., who dissented upon the ground that there is no evidence to support the finding or conclusion that the defendant or its general agent knew before or at the time the policy was issued that the insured was not a machinist.
#### The Higgin Manufacturing Company, Appellant, v. Walter L. Fleischman and Jessie E. Fleischman, Respondents.

Appeal dismissed, with costs. Jenks, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred; Hirschberg, P. J., not sitting.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0000505 16-AUG-2016 08:19 AM
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - 21 CFR Part 892
          - [Docket No. FDA-2005-N-0346] (formerly 2005N-0467)

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the                         **Federal Register**                         of July 17, 2008 (73 FR 40967). The final rule reclassified bone sonometer devices from class III into class II, subject to special controls. The document contained an inadvertent error regarding the impact of the final rule on small businesses. This document corrects that error.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Domini Cassis, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-215), Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-2342.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In FR Doc. E8-16354, appearing on page 40969 in the                     **Federal Register**                     of Thursday, July 17, 2008, there was an error regarding the impact of the final rule on small businesses. Specifically, language certifying that the final rule meets the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) was inadvertently omitted during document preparation. Accordingly, the following correction is made:                

1. On page 40969, in the middle column, under section “VI. Analysis of Impacts,” in the second full paragraph, the third sentence is revised to read: “The agency certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”

Dated: August 8, 2008.

Jeffrey Shuren,

Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.

[FR Doc. E8-18792 Filed 8-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank E. Brown, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 50,056.

First District, Third Division.

July 28, 1966.

Rehearing denied September 12, 1966.

Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Marshall A. Patner, Frederick F. Cohn, and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant; Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Joel M. Flaum, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

PRESIDING JUSTICE SULLIVAN.

Not to be published in full.
#### Herman Suhr, Respondent, v. Louis A. Sturdy and Others, Appellants.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 662 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 662

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 50 percent 
 limitation on the amount of business meal and entertainment expenses 
                         which are deductible.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 24, 1995

 Mrs. Vucanovich (for herself and Mr. Ensign) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 50 percent 
 limitation on the amount of business meal and entertainment expenses 
                         which are deductible.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF 50 PERCENT LIMITATION ON DEDUCTION FOR BUSINESS 
              MEAL AND ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES.

    (a) In General.--Section 274 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by striking subsection (n) (relating to only 50 percent of 
meal and entertainment expenses allowed as deduction) and by 
redesignating subsection (o) as subsection (n).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to expenses paid or incurred after the date of the enactment of 
this Act in taxable years ending after such date.
                                 <all>
```
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3945

To require the Federal Communications Commission to promote additional

sharing of broadcasting tower facilities to reduce the impact on local

communities of station towers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 1, 1996

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To require the Federal Communications Commission to promote additional sharing of broadcasting tower facilities

to reduce the impact on local communities of station

towers.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. FCC PROCEEDING REQUIRED.

4 The Federal Communications Commission shall initi5 ate a proceeding to propose revisions to its regulations to

6 reduce the impact on local communities of broadcasting

7 towers by requiring, to the extent technically feasible,
2

•HR 3945 IH

1 sharing of broadcasting towers by television and radio sta2 tion licensees.

Æ
18495.

#### Christian *v.*McLeod, Guardian, *et al.*

Almand, Justice.

On. March 25, 1949, a final decree was entered in Fulton Superior Court, -granting a total divorce on the petition of Ruby M. Christian versus Rufus Christian, a part of the decree being an agreement between the parties whereby the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff as permanent alimony a stated sum of money monthly until she remarried. Neither the agreement nor the decree reserved *to*the court any power to change or modify the decree as to permanent alimony. On June 9, 1953, the defendant filed a motion to modify this decree, to the extent that he be relieved from paying any alimony to the plaintiff *493as long as she remains committed to the Milledgeville State Hospital as a person non compos mentis, it being alleged that she was committed to such hospital on May 21, 1951, as being incurably insane, and has been in said hospital since that time. He alleged that a guardian had been appointed for the plaintiff, and the defendant has been making the alimonjr payments to the guardian; but that, since the plaintiff is being wholly supported by the State, none of the alimony is being applied by the guardian to her support and maintenance. He further alleged that the provision of the alimony decree as to the payment of alimon3f to the plaintiff until she remarries was too indefinite for enforcement, and since she has now been declared to be insane, she can not now or ever contract marriage, and the contingency as to termination of the alimony can never happen. The guardian and guardian ad litem filed general demurrers to the motion, which were sustained, and the case is here on exceptions to the order dismissing the motion. *Held:*

Argued February 9, 1954

Decided March 8, 1954

Rehearing denied March 23, 1954.

*Grace W. Thomas,*for plaintiff in error.

*Smith, Field, Doremus & Ringel, Herbert A. Bingel, Robert B. Harris,*contra.

1. Where, after a final verdict, a decree is rendered, dissolving the marital relations between the parties, and a contract between them is embraced in the decree whereby the husband agrees to pay to the wife a stated sum of mone3'’ each month as permanent alimony until her remarriage, and the court does not reserve any right or power to modify the decree as to permanent alimony, such decree is res adjudicata as to the amount of alimony, its payment, and the termination of the same, and the court has no power to modify or abrogate it. *Swain*v. *Wells,*210 *Ga.*394 (80 S. E. 2d 321).

2. The instant petition, which sought to relieve the defendant from paying the permanent alimony according to the terms of the decree, as long as the plaintiff was confined to the State Hospital under commitment as an insane person, failed to state any valid ground for modification of the decree, and was properly dismissed on demurrer.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
EXHIBIT 23

<PAGE>



                         INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT



We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in  Registration  statement  No.
33-95072 of Landmark  Bancshares,  Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated  October
29, 1998  incorporated  by  reference  in this  Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB of
Landmark Bancshares, Inc. for the year ended September 30, 1998.



                                        /s/Regier Carr & Monroe, L.L.P.
                                           Regier Carr & Monroe, L.L.P.



December 28, 1998
Wichita, Kansas
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-QSB
for the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                        9,758
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                               124,023
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                               1,408,906
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          1,570,340
<PP&E>                                      925,076
<DEPRECIATION>                              892,756
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            1,602,660
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     2,649,035
<BONDS>                                     720,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                    988,642
<OTHER-SE>                               (2,755,017)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              1,602,660
<SALES>                                   6,733,555
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          6,733,555
<CGS>                                     5,749,445
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             6,579,361
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          119,307
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             154,194
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         154,194
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                154,194
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.09



</TABLE>
#### Mary Evelyn Naylor, Respondent, v. James Oliver Naylor, Defendant. W. Martin Jones, Jr., Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied, with ten dollars costs.
#### Henry S. Mack, Respondent, v. Hugo S. Mack, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, with "leave to defendant to withdraw demurrer and to answer oh payment of costs. No opinion.