alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
F I L E D U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A p p e a l s T e n t h C i r c u i t 

### A u g u s t 4 , 2 0 0 9
E l i s a b e t h A
. S h u m a k e r C l e r k o f C o u r t U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E T E N T H C I R C U I T

S E C R E T A R Y O F L A B O R , U n i t e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r ,

P e t i t i o n e r ,

v
.
W Y N N E W O O D R E F I N I N G C O M P A N Y ,
R e s p o n d e n t

. N o

. 0 9

- 9 5 0 4 ( P e t i t i o n f o r E n f o r c e m e n t )

D E C R E E E N F O R C I N G F I N A L O R D E R S O F T H E O C C U P A T I O N A L

S A F E T Y A N D H E A L T H R E V I E W C O M M I S S I O N

B e f o r e B R I S C O E , B A L D O C K , a n d H O L M E S , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.

T h i s m a t t e r i s b e f o r e t h e c o u r t o n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e S e c r e t a r y o f L a b o r ( S e c r e t a r y ) f o r s u m m a r y e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t W y n n e w o o d R e f i n i n g

C o m p a n y ( W y n n e w o o d ) , e n f o r c i n g t h r e e f i n a l o r d e r s o f t h e O c c u p a t i o n a l S a f e t y

a n d H e a l t h R e v i e w C o m m i s s i o n i n O S H R C N o s

. 0 8

- 0 5 4 9 , 0 8

- 0 5 9 4 , a n d 0 8

- 0 6 7 7

.
T h e f i n a l o r d e r s a r e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h r e e s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t s b e t w e e n t h e

S e c r e t a r y a n d W y n n e w o o d , e a c h d a t e d S e p t e m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 8

. W e h a v e r e v i e w e d

t h e S e c r e t a r y ’ s p e t i t i o n , W y n n e w o o d ’ s a n s w e r , a n d t h e S e c r e t a r y ’ s r e p l y
. T h ep l e a d i n g s a n d r e c o r d e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e S e c r e t a r y i s e n t i t l e d t o s u m m a r y

e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e f i n a l o r d e r s

.
W H E R E F O R E , p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n 1 1 ( b ) o f t h e O c c u p a t i o n a l S a f e t y a n d

H e a l t h A c t o f 1 9 7 0 , 2 9 U

. S

. C

. § 6 6 0 ( b ) , i t i s h e r e b y :

O R D E R E D , A D J U D G E D , A N D D E C R E E D t h a t t h e C o m m i s s i o n ’ s t h r e e

f i n a l o r d e r s a r e e n f o r c e d a n d t h a t W y n n e w o o d s h a l l c o m p l y w i t h t h o s e o r d e r s b y :

1

. C o m p l y i n g w i t h a l l a b a t e m e n t m e a s u r e s s e t f o r t h i n t h e c i t a t i o n s f o r

i n s p e c t i o n s n o s

. 3 1 0 9 9 8 1 0 9 , 3 1 1 0 0 1 2 2 6 , a n d 3 1 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 , a s a m e n d e d b y t h e

s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t s d a t e d S e p t e m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 8 ; a n d

2

. C o m p l y i n g w i t h a l l t h e t e r m s o f t h e s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t s d a t e d

S e p t e m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 8

.
E n t e r e d

f o r t h e C o u r t ,

E L I S A B E T H A

. S H U M A K E R , C l e r k

-2-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

PERRION BLUFORD,

Defendant.

4:23-CR-3056

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The defendant shall be present for the January 12, 2024 

hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea (filing 55).

2. The Clerk of the Court shall provide a copy of this order to 

the United States Marshal.

Dated this 22nd day of December, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

John M. Gerrard

Senior United States District Judge

4:23-cr-03056-JMG-CRZ Doc # 58 Filed: 12/22/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 163
**EXHIBIT 32.7**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18**

**of the United States Code**

 

I, Thomas M. O’Flynn, Chief Financial Officer of PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C., to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C. on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C.

 

 

|   |   |   | /s/ Thomas M. O’Flynn  |
|--------|--------|--------|-----------------------------|
|   |   |   | **Thomas M. O’Flynn**  |
|   |   |   | PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C. |
|   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer     |
|   |   |   | November 1, 2006            |

 

 

 

----
#### Ludvic HERLEVIC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. L. WEATHERLY, et al., Defendant-Appellees.

No. 7418.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Nov. 23, 1949.

Thompson, Thompson & Sparks, Monroe, attorneys for appellant.

Fink & Fink, Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, Monroe, attorneys for appellees.

HARDY, Judge.

This is a suit for damages in the nature of personal injuries sustained by plaintiff as the result of an intersectional automobile collision. After trial there was judgment in favor of defendants rejecting plaintiff’s demands, from which plaintiff has appealed.

This cause was consolidated, for trial and for purposes of appeal, with No. 7417 and 7419 on the docket of this Court. 43 So.2d 478; 43 So.2d 481. The facts at issue are fully set forth in our opinion in the suit of Weatherly v. Herlevic et al., 43 So.2d 478, No. 7417 on the docket of this Court, this day decided. No point of law is involved in a consideration of this case, and for the reasons set forth in the opinion referred to above, the judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant’s cost.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1153

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the child tax

credit to $2,000 per child and make such credit refundable.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 21, 2001

Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut 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 increase

the child tax credit to $2,000 per child and make such

credit refundable.

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

3 SECTION 1. CHILD TAX CREDIT INCREASED TO $2,000 PER

4 CHILD AND MADE REFUNDABLE.

5 (a) CREDIT TO BE REFUNDABLE.—

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 24 of the Internal

7 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to child tax credit)

8 is hereby moved to subpart C of part IV of sub9 chapter A of chapter 1 of such Code (relating to re10 fundable credits) and inserted after section 34.
2

•HR 1153 IH

1 (2) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.—

2 (A) Section 35 of such Code is redesig3 nated as section 36.

4 (B) Section 24 of such Code (as moved by

5 paragraph (1)) is redesignated as section 35.

6 (b) INCREASE IN CREDIT.—Subsection (a) of section

7 35 of such Code, as redesignated by subsection (a), is

8 amended by striking ‘‘$500’’ and all that follows and in9 serting ‘‘$2,000.’’

10 (c) CREDIT APPLICABLE TO ALL TAXPAYERS.—Sec11 tion 35 of such Code, as so redesignated, is amended by

12 striking subsection (b) (relating to limitation based on ad13 justed gross income).

14 (d) ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.—

15 (1) Section 35 of such Code (as so redesig16 nated) is amended—

17 (A) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘this

18 chapter’’ and inserting ‘‘this subtitle’’,

19 (B) by striking subsection (d), and

20 (C) by redesignating subsections (c), (e)

21 and (f) as subsections (b), (c), and (d), respec22 tively.

23 (2) Section 32 of such Code is amended by

24 striking subsection (n).
3

•HR 1153 IH

1 (3) Clause (ii) of section 151(c)(6)(B) of such

2 Code is amended by striking ‘‘section 24’’ and in3 serting ‘‘section 35’’.

4 (4) The last sentence of paragraph (26) of sec5 tion 501(c) of such Code is amended by striking

6 ‘‘section 24(c)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 35(c)’’.

7 (5) Subparagraph (I) of section 6213(g)(2) of

8 such Code is amended by striking ‘‘section 24(e)’’

9 and inserting ‘‘section 35(e)’’.

10 (6) The table of sections for subpart C of part

11 IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is

12 amended by striking the item relating to section 35

13 and inserting the following:

‘‘Sec. 35. Child tax credit.

‘‘Sec. 36. Overpayments of tax.’’

14 (7) The table of sections for subpart A of such

15 part IV is amended by striking the item relating to

16 section 24.

17 (8) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title

18 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting be19 fore the period ‘‘or from section 35 of such Code’’.

20 (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

21 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

22 December 31, 2001.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

KEVIN JEROME MOORE,

Defendant.

8:23MJ315

2:19CR2030-002

Magistrate Judge Nelson

RULE 32.1 ORDER

A Petition and Warrant (charging document) having been filed in the district court for the Southern District 

of Texas charging the above-named defendant with alleged violation of supervised release, and the 

defendant having been arrested in the District of Nebraska, proceedings to commit defendant to another 

district were held in accordance with Fed.R.Cr.P. Rule 32.1. The defendant had an initial appearance 

here in accordance with Fed.R.Cr.P.32.1.

Additionally, 

☒ The defendant waived an identity hearing and admitted that he/she was the person named in 

the aforementioned charging document.

☒ The defendant waived his right to a preliminary examination.

☒ The government did move for detention.

☒ The defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived a detention hearing in this district and 

reserved his/her right to a detention hearing in the charging district.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the defendant is held to answer in the prosecuting district.

☒ Defendant has been unable to obtain release under the Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 

3141 et.seq. and the U.S. Marshal is commanded to take custody of the above-named 

defendant and to transport the defendant with a certified copy of this order forthwith to the 

prosecuting district specified above and there deliver the defendant to the U.S. Marshal for that 

district or to some other officer authorized to receive the defendant, all proceedings required by 

Fed.R.Cr.P.40 having been completed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 25, 2023.

s/ Michael D. Nelson

U.S. Magistrate Judge

8:23-mj-00315-MDN Doc # 9 Filed: 05/25/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 29
TEST DOCUMENT A Case: 60-2424 Document: 809 Page: 1 Filed: 02/26/2021
Pos t O f fic e Bo x 12548

, Austin

, T exa s 7 8 7 1 1

- 2 5 4 8 • ( 5 1 2 ) 4 6 3

- 2 1 0 0 • www.texasattorneygeneral.gov 

# April 9, 2015

F IRST 

# C OURT OF 

# A PPEALS 

# VIA ELECTRONIC FILING 301 Fannin Street Houston, Texas 77002-2066 ATTN: Christopher A. Prine

Re: Case No. 01-14-00899-CV; The State of Texas v. Titan Land Development, Inc. and Bauer-Hockley 550, L.P. ; In the First Court of Appeals, Houston,
Texas.

Dear Mr. Prine:

Oral argument was held in this case on April 8, 2015. At that time the Court indicated that the State could provide a letter with a case citation for the proposition that statutory provisions without penalties were directory rather than mandatory. Please distribute this post-submission letter to Justices Jennings, Higley and Huddle.

In Helena Chemical Company v. Wilkins , 47 S.W.3d 486 (Tex. 2001), the Supreme Court stated the following:

To determine whether a timing provision is mandatory, we first look to whether the statute contains a noncompliance penalty. If a provision requires that an act be performed within a certain time without any words restraining the act’s performance after that time, the timing provision is usually directory.

Id . at 495.

In addition, in further response to Justice Jennings’s question regarding other provisions with similar twenty-day deadlines, a comparable provision would be the civil suit answer deadline contained in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 99(b). ACCEPTED 01-14-00899-cv FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/9/2015 5:34:48 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

# Mr

. P ri ne

A pr il 9, 201 5 Page 2

Pos t O f fic e Bo x 12548

, Austin

, T exa s 7 8 7 1 1

- 2 5 4 8 • ( 5 1 2 ) 4 6 3

- 2 1 0 0 • www.texas attor ney gen er al .gov 

# S i n c e r e l y,

/S/ Susan De sm arais Bonnen Susan Desm arais Bonnen Assistant Attorney

Ge neral

sus an

. bonn en @te xa sa tto rn ey ge ne ra l. gov

SD B/lfs

cc : Ch ar le s M cF ar la nd via e m ai l: c m cf

ar la nd@m cf

ar la ndpl lc

. co m and E-S ervice
Exhibit 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the quarterly report of StemGen, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Simon Dawson, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 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; and2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  Date: February 19, 2019BY: /s/ Simon DawsonSimon DawsonCEO and Chairman of the Board  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
{C0120172.1 } 

Law Offices of 

Sulloway & Hollis, P.L.L.C. 

Concord, N.H. 03302 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Michael Wintle, Administrator of the 

Estate of Michael K. Wintle, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

St. Paul's School, ReliaStar Life 

Insurance Company, and Jefferson Pilot 

Financial Insurance Company, 

 Defendants. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 

 Civil Action No. 04-415-SM 

 

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

 

Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff Michael 

Wintle, Administrator of the Estate of Michael K. Wintle and defendants St. Paul's 

School, ReliaStar Life Insurance Company, and Jefferson Pilot Financial Insurance 

Company, hereby stipulate that the plaintiff's claims against the defendants in this 

matter be dismissed with prejudice. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

MICHAEL WINTLE, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 

 ESTATE OF MICHAEL K. WINTLE 

 By His Attorneys, 

 BOROFSKY, AMODEO-VICKERY 

 & BANDAZIAN, P.A. 

Dated: May 6, 2005 By: /s/ Christopher A. Bandazian #353 

 Christopher A. Bandazian, Esq. 

 Bar No. 353 

 708 Pine Street 

 Manchester, NH 03104 

 (603)625-6441 

 e-mail: cbandazian@e-atty.net

Case 1:04-cv-00415-SM Document 19 Filed 05/06/05 Page 1 of 2
-2-

{C0120172.1 } 

Law Offices of 

Sulloway & Hollis, P.L.L.C. 

Concord, N.H. 03302 

 ST. PAUL'S SCHOOL 

 By Its Attorneys, 

 McLANE, GRAF, RAULERSON, 

 & MIDDLETON, P.A. 

DATED: May 6, 2005 By: /s/ Charla Bizios Stevens #328 

 Charla Bizios Stevens, Esq. 

 Bar No. 328 

 900 Elm Street 

 P.O. Box 326 

 Manchester, NH 03105-0326 

 (603)628-1363 

 e-mail: charla.stevens@mclane.com

 RELIASTAR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 

 By Its Attorneys, 

 NIXON PEABODY, L.L.P. 

DATED: May 6, 2005 By: /s/ Kevin M. Fitzgerald #806 

 Kevin M. Fitzgerald, Esq. 

 Bar No. 806 

 889 Elm Street 

 Manchester, NH 03101 

 (603)628-4000 

 e-mail: kfitzgerald@nixonpeabody.com

 JEFFERSON PILOT FINANCIAL INSURANCE 

 COMPANY 

 By Its Attorneys, 

 SULLOWAY & HOLLIS, P.L.L.C. 

DATED: May 6, 2005 By: /s/ William D. Pandolph #5579 

 William D. Pandolph, Esq. 

 Bar No. 5579 

 9 Capitol Street 

 P.O. Box 1256 

 Concord, NH 03302-1256 

 (603)224-2341 

 e-mail: wpandolph@sulloway.com

Case 1:04-cv-00415-SM Document 19 Filed 05/06/05 Page 2 of 2
-1- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RELATED CASE ORDER A Motion for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related or a Sua Sponte Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship (Civil L.R. 3-12) has been filed. The time for filing an opposition or statement of support has passed. As the judge assigned to the earliest filed case below that bears my initials, I find that the more recently filed case(s) that I have initialed below are related to the case assigned to me, and such case(s) shall be reassigned to me. Any cases listed below that are not related to the case assigned to me are referred to the judge assigned to the next-earliest filed case for a related case determination.

C 05-01298 PJH Amochaev et al v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc. C 09-04117 SBA Bullen v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. I find that the above case is NOT relat ed to the case assigned to me. PJH

CLERK’S NOTICE The court has reviewed the motion and determined that no cases are related and no reassignments shall occur. Richard W. Wieking, Clerk DATED: 9/22/09 By: Deputy Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

New Hampshire Department of

Health and Human Services,

Division for Children,

Youth and Families, and

Brian Murphy, Child

Protective Service Worker,

Plaintiffs

v. Civil No. 06-cv-148-SM

Elena Katz and

Arnold Grodman,

Defendants

O R D E R

On April 11, 2006, the State of New Hampshire filed a

petition for abuse or neglect with regard to Eleonora Grodman, a

minor child. In the Matter of Eleonora Grodman, Case No. 2006

J119, New Hampshire Superior Court, Brentwood Family Division. 

The proceeding is civil in nature, and is designed to protect

children, not punish parents. Parents who allegedly abuse or

neglect their children are brought before the court not as

criminal defendants but as parties to a civil action.

Eleonora’s parents, Elena Katz and Arnold Grodman, are said

to have abused or neglected Eleanora, and appear to have been

duly served with the petition and a summons, but, in any event,

Case 1:06-cv-00148-SM Document 8 Filed 04/28/06 Page 1 of 3
2

have actual notice of the proceeding. Indeed, they have filed a

notice of removal, seeking to bring the proceeding before this

court.

Having reviewed the papers filed, it is apparent that no

basis exists upon which this court could possibly exercise

federal jurisdiction over this matter. The asserted basis for

removal jurisdiction - federal question - is facially without

merit. The abuse or neglect proceeding relates exclusively to

state law concerns and involves no issue of federal law. A

defendant may not remove a case to federal court unless the

complaint in state court establishes that the case “arises under”

federal law, or other jurisdictional factors, not relevant here

(e.g., diversity of citizenship, federal preemption, etc.),

warrant the exercise of jurisdiction. See Franchise Tax Bd. v.

Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983). It

is not enough that a federal claim might be asserted as a defense

or counterclaim in the state proceeding.

Conclusion

This case is remanded to the New Hampshire Superior Court,

as there is no legitimate basis for removal. Defendants’

Case 1:06-cv-00148-SM Document 8 Filed 04/28/06 Page 2 of 3
3

petition to proceed in forma pauperis with respect to the removal

petition is granted.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

April 28, 2006

cc: Elena Katz, pro se

Arnold Grodman, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00148-SM Document 8 Filed 04/28/06 Page 3 of 3
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



In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Shengda Network Technology, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”),
for the year ended June 30, 2022, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, HangJin Chen, 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; and                                   
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                             
| | (2) | The
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
    of the Company.



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|Date:
    October 28, 2022 | By     | HangJin
    Chen                                
|-------------------------- | ------ | ------------------------------------------------
|                           | Name:  | HangJin
    Chen                                
|                           | Title: | Chief
    Financial Officer                     
|                           |        | (Principal
    Financial and Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 15



                                   1345 Avenue of the Americas
                                   New York, NY 10105


February 18, 1998

KeySpan Energy Corporation 
One MetroTech Center
Brooklyn, NY 11201

Gentlemen:
                                   
We are aware that KeySpan Energy Corporation has incorporated by
reference in its Registration Statement Nos. 33-66182, 333-04863,
333-03441, 333-06257 and 333-18025, its Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended December 31, 1997, which includes our report dated January
22, 1998 covering the unaudited interim financial information
contained therein.  Pursuant to Regulation C of the Securities Act
of 1933, our report is not considered a part of the registration
statements prepared or certified by our firm or a report prepared
or certified by our firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of
the Act.


Very truly yours,


ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

No. 1 7

- BG

- 570

IN RE CHRISTOPHER W. POVERMAN

201 4 D DN 315

A n Administratively Suspended Member of the

Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Reg. No. 437053

BEFORE: B eckwith

, Associate Judge

, and Nebeker and Steadman , Senior Judge s

.

O R D E R (Filed

– September 28 , 2017)

On consideration of the certified order of the Maryland Court of Appeals indefinitely suspending respondent from the practice of law in the state of Maryland with the right to apply for re instatement after no less than one year ; t his

court’s June 9 , 2017

, order temporarily suspending respondent in this case and directing h im to show cause why functionally equivalent reciprocal discipline

should not be imposed ; the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline ; and it appearing that respondent did not file a response to this court’s

show cause order or file the required D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit , it is

ORDERED that Christopher W. Poverman is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for one year with reinstatement subject

to a fitness requirement

. See In re Sibley , 990 A.2d 483

, 487

- 88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that the presumption of identical discipline in D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (c) will prevail except in “rare” cases); In re Cole , 809 A.2d 1226, 1227 n.3 (D.C. 2002) (explaining that in unopposed reciprocal matters the “imposition of ident ical discipline should be close to automatic”)

. F or purposes of eligibility to petition for

reinstatement

, the suspension will not begin to run until such time as respondent

files a D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit.

PER CURIAM