alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered January 15, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01305-CR

No. 05-12-01306-CR

CHAD BLAKELEE HIGHTOWER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-33192-W, F10-33202-W

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeals, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeals. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

The appeals are ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeals shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57087-57088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23032]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

[Docket ID: USN-2008-0054]


Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: United States Marine Corps, DoD.

ACTION: Notice to Delete Two Systems of Records Notices.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Marine Corps is proposing to delete two systems of 
records notices from its inventory of records systems subject to the 
Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a).

DATES: This action will be effective without further notice on October 
31, 2008 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary 
determination.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, FOIA/PA 
Section (CMC-ARSE), 2 Navy Annex, Room 1005, Washington, DC 20380-1775.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Tracy D. Ross at (703) 614-4008.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Marine Corps' records systems 
notices for records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 
U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register 
and are available from the address above.
    The U.S. Marine Corps proposes to delete two systems of records 
notices from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act 
of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletions are not 
within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 
U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of new or 
altered systems reports.

    Dated: September 23, 2008.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
MMN00045

System Name:
    Automated Recruit Management System (ARMS) (February 22, 1993, 58 
FR 10630).

Reason:
    These records are covered under System of Records Notice M01133-3, 
Marine Corps Recruiting Information Support System MCRISS) (May 23, 
2008, 73 FR 30095).

[[Page 57088]]

MMN00006

System Name:
    Marine Corps Military Personnel Records (OQR/SRB) (April 8, 2002, 
67 FR 16738).

Reason:
    These records are covered under System of Records Notice M01070-6, 
Marine Corps Official Military Personnel Files (March 17, 2008, 73 FR 
14234).

[FR Doc. E8-23032 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 1Federal Reserve Bank of: BostonFilings received during the week ending January 3, 2015FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBERKSHIRE HILLS BANCORP, INC                                                                                            * 3A5
#### In the Matter of Richard A. Dudley, Jr., a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Stan*652dards, Petitioner.

[744 NYS2d 724]

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in 1965. He is currently suspended from practice until further order of this Court *(Matter of Dudley, 282*AD2d 867). Prior to his suspension, he maintained a law office in the Town of Canton, St. Lawrence County.

As charged by petitioner, we find that respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law while suspended by writing a letter on behalf of a former divorce client to the client’s spouse setting forth a proposed settlement of their pending divorce *(see, 22*NYCRR 806.9 [a]; Code of Professional Responsibility DR 3-101 [b] [22 NYCRR 1200.16 (b)]).

Having heard respondent in mitigation pursuant to our rules *(see, 22*NYCRR 806.5) but also considering his disciplinary record in aggravation *(see, e.g., Matter of Dudley, supra; Matter of Dudley,*262 AD2d 864; *Matter of Dudley,*250 AD2d 996), we conclude that respondent’s current suspension shall continue for six months from the date of this decision after which he may file an application for reinstatement.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent is found guilty of professional misconduct as charged and specified in the petition; and it is further ordered that respondent’s current indefinite suspension is continued for six months, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court; and it is further ordered that, for the period of his suspension, respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; he is forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys *(see,*22 NYCRR 806.9).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01934-DME-BNB 

JEFFREY A. BOARDMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin corporation, 

Defendant. 

______________________________________________________________________

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO WITHDRAW MOTION TO 

AMEND AND REQUEST FOR AN AMENDED ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

______________________________________________________________________

Upon review of Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Motion to Amend and 

Request for An Amended Entry of Judgment, Proposed Amended Judgment and 

Proposed Order to Clerk to Enter Amended Judgment, and for good cause shown, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is Granted. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend 

and Request for an Amended Entry of Judgment, Proposed Amended Judgment and 

Proposed Order to Clerk to Enter Amended Judgment (Docket #70) is hereby 

withdrawn. 

DATED THIS 12th day of September, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/ David M. Ebel

________________________________ 

Judge David M. Ebel 

Case 1:11-cv-01934-DME-BNB Document 75 Filed 09/12/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57091-57092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23067]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13116-000]


Mississippi River 14 Hydro, LLC; Notice of Competing Preliminary 
Permit Application Accepted for Filing, and Soliciting Comments, and 
Motions To Intervene

September 25, 2008.
    On February 15, 2008, Mississippi River 14 Hydro, LLC and BPUS 
Generation Development, LLC each filed a competing application, 
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study 
the feasibility of the Mississippi River Lock and Dam No. 14 
Hydroelectric Project, to be located at the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers' Mississippi Lock and Dam No. 14, on the Mississippi River in 
Rock Island County and Scott County, Illinois.
    Mississippi River 14 Hydro, LLC's proposed project would utilize 
the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Mississippi Lock and Dam No. 
14 and would consist of: (1) A proposed powerhouse containing three 
generating units with an installed capacity of 26-megawatts; (2) a 
switchyard; (3) a proposed 1-mile, 69-kV transmission line; and (4) 
appurtenant facilities. The proposed Mississippi River Lock and

[[Page 57092]]

Dam 14 Hydroelectric Project would have an estimated annual generation 
of approximately 139-gigawatt-hours, which would be sold to a local 
utility.
    Applicant Contact: For Mississippi River 14 Hydro, LLC, Mr. Brent 
L. Smith, COO, Symbiotics, LLC, P.O. Box 535, Rigby, ID 83442, phone: 
(208) 745-0834.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis, (202) 502-8735.
    Competing Application: This application competes with Project No. 
13115-000 filed February 15, 2008. Competing applications were required 
to be filed on or before July 10, 2008.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene: 60 days from 
the issuance of this notice. Comments and motions to intervene may be 
filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) 
and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-
Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, documents may be 
paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight copies should be 
mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For more 
information on how to submit these types of filings please go to the 
Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13116-000) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-23067 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
A. H., A CHILD,

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. 1D17-1678

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 3, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Robert E. Long, Judge.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Lori Willner, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 10.17

Compensation Arrangements for Non-Management Directors

Annual Retainer and Meeting Fees

Each of the non-management directors of Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation (the "Company") receives an annual retainer of $16,000, payable in quarterly installments, and 100 shares of the Company's common stock, $1.00 par value, per year. Each of the Company's non-management directors also receives $2,500 per year for each Board committee on which such director serves, and an additional $2,500 per year for each committee of which such director serves as chairperson. In addition, a non-management director who serves on a subcommittee of the Audit Committee responsible for initially reviewing complaints and other correspondence submitted pursuant to Section 301 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 receives $2,500 per year for service on such subcommittee.

Expenses

The Company reimburses non-management directors for travel and out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the performance of their services as directors.
Case 1:11-cv-01966-LTB Document 13 Filed 09/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-01966-LTB Document 13 Filed 09/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-01966-LTB Document 13 Filed 09/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-01966-LTB Document 13 Filed 09/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-01966-LTB Document 13 Filed 09/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00109-CV

Robin BROWN,

Appellant

v.

Terry FASELER,

Appellee

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-04701

Honorable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a). Costs of appeal are 

taxed against Appellant Robin Brown.

SIGNED September 5, 2018.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 5Federal Reserve Bank of: RichmondFilings received during the week ending October 27, 2012FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBANQUE CENTRALE POPULAIRE                                                                                               FBSEABanque Centrale Populaire, Casablanca, Morocco, to establish a representative office in Washington, D.C.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not applicableHIGHLANDS BANKSHARES, INC.                                                                                              CICJames D. Moore, Jr. and Judith S. Moore, both of Abingdon, Virginia, Heather M. Post of Asheville, North Carolina, and James D. Moore, III of Sterling, Virginia, as a group acting in concert to retain 10.93% of the outstanding voting shares of Highlands Bankshares, Inc., Abingdon, VirginiaNewspaper: 10/24/2012Federal Register: 11/07/2012SURREY BANCORP                                                                                                          CICTamra Wright Thomas, Winston Salem, North Carolina, to acquire up to 10.06% of Surrey Bancorp, Mount Airy, North Carolina.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 11/08/2012
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 Vicon Fiber Optics Corp. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Allan Borkowski, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.  Date: May 22, 2012  /s/ Allan Borkowski Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer  This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00293-WYD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. JAIME SANCHEZ-CAMACHO,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY CHIEF JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL

A Change of Plea Hearing is set for Tuesday, January 3, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.

Dated: November 15, 2011.

Case 1:11-cr-00293-WYD Document 16 Filed 11/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 09-cr-14-01-PB

Richard Kerr

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

trial scheduled for March 3, 2009, citing new counsel and the

need for additional time to complete discovery and prepare for

trial. The government does not object to a continuance of the

trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from March 3, 2009 to May 5, 2009. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:09-cr-00014-PB Document 14 Filed 02/23/09 Page 1 of 2
2

The February 25, 2009 final pretrial conference is continued

to April 21, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

February 23, 2009

cc: Maryellen Biltech, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:09-cr-00014-PB Document 14 Filed 02/23/09 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven Finkelstein, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 97]

*457Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven L. Barrett, J., on dismissal motion; Martin Marcus, J., at plea and sentence), rendered January 28, 2004, convicting defendant of grand larceny in the second and fourth degrees, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and criminal mischief in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the DNA databank fee, and otherwise affirmed.

The motion court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the second of the two indictments based on preindictment delay *(see People v Vernace,*96 NY2d 886 [2001]; *People v Singer,*44 NY2d 241 [1978]; *People v Taranovich,*37 NY2d 442, 445 [1975]). There was no showing of prejudice to defendant, and the delay in commencement of the prosecution was not designed to gain a tactical advantage. Instead, the investigation proceeded in good faith as the People sought to gather enough evidence to secure a conviction *(see People v Rodrigues,*281 AD2d 375 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 901 [2001]). Furthermore, some of the investigative delay was the result of defendant’s conduct.

Although defendant waived his right to appeal, his claim that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance due to an alleged conflict of interest is reviewable to the extent it affects the voluntariness of his plea *(see People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]). However, we find this claim to be without merit. Defendant, who was represented by a Legal Aid Society attorney, claims that a conflict arose when the People made an application to introduce uncharged crimes evidence relevant to some of the charges against defendant, which included evidence that, five years earlier, defendant had tampered with the voicemail communications of the Legal Aid attorney then representing him in Kings County. This did not present an actual conflict of interest, but only a very remote potential conflict *(see People v Perez,*70 NY2d 773 [1987]; *People v Wilkins,*28 NY2d 53 [1971]), which had no effect on the conduct of defendant’s *458defense *(see People v Recupero,*73 NY2d 877, 879 [1988]; *see also Cuyler v Sullivan,*446 US 335, 348-350 [1980]). The uncharged crimes issue became moot when defendant pleaded guilty, and there is no evidence that the alleged conflict operated to defendant’s detriment in any respect.

As the People concede, since the crime was committed prior to the effective date of the legislation (Penal Law § 60.35 [1] [a] [v] [former (1) (e)]) providing for the imposition of a DNA databank fee, that fee should not have been imposed. Since this issue involves the substantive legality of the sentence, it survives defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal.

Defendant’s remaining arguments are foreclosed by his appeal waiver, as well as by his guilty plea itself *(see People v Hansen,*95 NY2d 227 [2000]; *People v Taylor,*65 NY2d 1 [1985]; *compare People v Pelchat,*62 NY2d 97 [1984]), and are without merit in any event. Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.
#### Merida Pina, Respondent, v Flik International Corp., Appellant-Respondent, and Price Waterhouse Coopers, *LLP,*Respondent-Appellant.

[808 NYS2d 752]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Flik International Corp., and Price Waterhouse *773Coopers, *LLP,*separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated January 3, 2005, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell on a liquid substance leaking from garbage bags near a freight elevator on the 29th floor of a building. She commenced this action against the defendant Price Waterhouse Coopers, LLP (hereinafter Price Waterhouse), which leased the office space on the 29th floor, and the defendant Flik International Corp. (hereinafter Flik), which provided food catering services to the floor, alleging that Flik created the dangerous condition and Price Waterhouse negligently permitted the condition to exist.

Both defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them on the grounds, inter alia, that they did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care and did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition that allegedly caused the plaintiffs injuries. The Supreme Court denied both motions. We affirm.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motions for summary judgment since they failed to submit sufficient evidence in admissible form to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). The defendants failed to show that the unsigned deposition transcripts of various witnesses they submitted in support of their motions had previously been forwarded to the relevant witnesses for their review pursuant to CPLR 3116 (a). Hence, contrary to the defendants’ contention, they were not admissible *(see Lalli v Abe,*234 AD2d 346 [1996]; *Palumbo v Innovative Communications Concepts,*175 Misc 2d 156 [1997], *affd*234 AD2d 346 [1998]; Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3116:1). Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Covello, JJ., concur.