alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Third Department,

August 1990

(August 16,1990)

#### In the Matter of Harvey L. Weiss, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Third Judicial Department, Petitioner.

Per Curiam.

Respondent is a New Jersey attorney admitted to practice in this Department in 1982.

Petitioner Committee on Professional Standards moves for an order disciplining respondent pursuant to section 806.19 of this court’s rules (22 NYCRR 806.19) by reason of his recent suspension from the practice of law in the State of New Jersey.

It appears from petitioner’s papers that a disciplinary proceeding was commenced against respondent and his partner after a 1984 audit pursuant to the Random Audit Program of the Office of Attorney Ethics of New Jersey. That proceeding eventually resulted in an order by the New Jersey Supreme Court suspending respondent from the practice of law for a period of six months for his "gross negligence in safeguarding client funds, in violation of DR 9-102”. The suspension was made effective May 22, 1990.

Respondent has filed a letter with this court stating that he does not intend to appear in opposition to the Committee’s motion.

In view of respondent’s suspension in the State of New Jersey for professional misconduct and his lack of opposition to the instant application, petitioner’s motion is granted. It is further determined that the ends of justice will be served by *960imposing upon respondent the same discipline in this State as was imposed in the State of New Jersey *(see, Matter of Apovian,*140 AD2d 736).

Respondent suspended for six months and until further order of this court, the period of suspension to correspond with the period of suspension imposed in the State of New Jersey. Respondent may apply for reinstatement upon furnishing satisfactory proof that he has been reinstated as a member of the New Jersey Bar and has otherwise complied with the requirements of section 806.12 of this court’s rules (22 NYCRR 806.12). Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1352 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

127 East Locust Street in Fairbury, Illinois, as the ‘‘Dr. Francis Townsend Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 10, 2007 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. OBAMA) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 127 East Locust Street in Fairbury, Illinois, 

as the ‘‘Dr. Francis Townsend Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DR. FRANCIS TOWNSEND POST OFFICE BUILD4 ING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 127 East Locust Street in 

7 Fairbury, Illinois, shall be known and designated as the 

8 ‘‘Dr. Francis Townsend Post Office Building’’. 


ccoleman on PRODPC74 with BILLS
2 

•S 1352 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Dr. Francis Townsend 

5 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC74 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           6,984
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  152,710
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,857
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           1,459
<DEPRECIATION>                                     468
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 139,958
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         43,580
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            48
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,463
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   139,958
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,856
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,647
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   348
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,609
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    252
<INCOME-TAX>                                       100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                152
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       152
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00379-PAB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. CURTIS ALAN DAVID,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATES AND DEADLINES

_____________________________________________________________________

This matter has been scheduled for a five-day jury trial on the docket of Judge

Philip A. Brimmer in the U.S. District Courthouse, Courtroom A701, 7th Floor, 901 19th

Street, Denver, Colorado, to commence on November 28, 2011 at 8:00 a.m. It is

ORDERED that all pretrial motions shall be filed by October 20, 2011 and

responses to these motions shall be filed by October 27, 2011. It is further

ORDERED that expert witness disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 shall

be made no later than seven days before the deadline for filing pretrial motions and any

challenges to such experts shall be made by the pretrial motion filing deadline. It is

further

ORDERED that disclosures regarding rebuttal expert witnesses shall be made

one week after the deadline for filing pretrial motions and any challenges to such

experts shall be made no later than two weeks after the pretrial motions deadline. It is

further

Case 1:11-cr-00379-PAB Document 10 Filed 09/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

ORDERED that a Trial Preparation Conference is set for November 22, 2011 at

8:00 a.m. in Courtroom A701. Lead counsel who will try the case shall attend in

person. 

The parties shall be prepared to address the following issues at the Trial

Preparation Conference:

1) jury selection;

2) sequestration of witnesses;

3) timing of presentation of witnesses and evidence;

4) anticipated evidentiary issues;

5) any stipulations as to fact or law; and

6) any other issue affecting the duration or course of the trial. 

DATED September 27, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00379-PAB Document 10 Filed 09/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1



[COOPERS & LYBRAND LETTERHEAD]                                        EXHIBIT 23



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

                                      -----


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Isomedix Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-3 (File Nos. 33-52474, 33-31443) and on
Form S-8 (File Nos. 2-87989, 2-87990, 33-41016, 33-48812, 33-73128, 333-10033)
of our report dated February 11, 1997, except for Note 20 for which the date is
March 19, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedules of Isomedix Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December
31, 1996 and 1995 and for the years ended December 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994,
which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



Parsippany, New Jersey
March 31, 1997
                                                    /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
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 of Photonic Products Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, William J. Foote, 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) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented
and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods
presented.




Dated:
March 31, 2009





/s/ William J. FooteWilliam
      J. FooteChief
      Financial Officer and
Secretary




This
certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Sections 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.
#### In the Matter of Seymour Tepper, Petitioner, against Joseph P. Kelly, as Commissioner of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

April 17, 1957.

*Julius Reinlieb*for petitioner.

*Louis J. Lefkowits, Attorney-General (Barnett Levy*of counsel), for respondent.

*1020Joseph A. Gavagan, J.

Motion for reargument is granted and upon reargument the prior decision is recalled and the original motion is disposed of as follows: Upon the additional papers now before the court it is conceded that on July 7, 1956 the petitioner was issued Uniform Traffic Ticket No. 1512 in the town of Bethel, Sullivan County, by State trooper Verne Van Orden, charging petitioner with leaving the scene of an accident; that said ticket had printed at the bottom thereof in bold red type in a size equal to at least 12-point type, the following words: “A plea of guilty to this charge is equivalent to a conviction after trial. If you are convicted, not only will you be liable to a penalty, but in addition your license to drive a motor vehicle or motor cycle, and your certificate of registration, if any, are subject to suspension and revocation as prescribed by law. ’ ’

Section 335-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, provides in part as follows: *‘ ‘*The giving of the foregoing instructions by means of a statement printed in bold red type in a size equal to at least twelve point type, upon a summons or ticket issued to a person charged with any such violation shall constitute compliance with the requirements of this section.”

The Legislature by this amendment has provided that the issuance of such a summons with such notice is compliance with the provisions of section 335-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With such legislative fiat the court may not interfere. The petitioner has directed the court’s attention to the case of *Matter of Arcuri*v. *Macduff*(286 App. Div. 17). That decision concerned a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law occurring prior to the effective date of the 1954 legislative amendment (L. 1954, ch. 664) regarding the endorsement upon a summons of the notice concerning the effect of a plea of guilty. Accordingly, the original motion to set aside the determination of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles is denied.

Settle order.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

SAFIR S. KAZI,

Appellant,

v.

Case No. 5D22-2826 

LT Case No. 2022-CF-002049-A 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

 Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed July 3, 2023 

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Seminole County, 

Melissa Souto, Judge. 

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, 

and Betty Wyatt, Assistant Public 

Defender, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Richard A. Pallas, 

Jr., Assistant Attorney General, 

Daytona Beach, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

EDWARDS, C.J., LAMBERT and JAY, JJ., concur.
(August 28, 1990)

#### In the Matter of Thomas Crucet, Petitioner, v John Staiger, Respondent.

Kane, J.

Proceeding initiated in this court pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 to remove respondent from the office of Town Councilman of the Town of Shandaken, Ulster County.

Petitioner has moved for an order appointing a Referee. The conclusory allegations in the petition fail to allege facts sufficient to remove respondent pursuant to the Public Officers Law *(see,*Public Officers Law §36). Moreover, petitioner is guilty of laches in prosecuting this proceeding which was commenced over a year and a half ago. Accordingly, the motion should be denied and the petition dismissed *(see, Matter of Moller v Stewart,*41 AD2d 986).

Motion denied and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02420-RPM

NORMAN RIDDLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE WESTERN UNION COMPANY, a Delaware limited liability company,

Defendant.

____________________________________________________________________________________

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

____________________________________________________________________________________

Pursuant to the Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice, filed November 21, 2012 [35], it is

ORDERED that this civil action is dismissed with prejudice and each party to pay his or its own

costs and attorneys’ fees.

DATED: November 21st , 2012

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

__________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02420-RPM Document 36 Filed 11/21/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1245 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.1245

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and eight

                                 An Act

 
    To reform mutual aid agreements for the National Capital Region.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REFORM OF MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS FOR THE NATIONAL CAPITAL 
REGION.
    Section 7302 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 
Act of 2004 (42 U.S.C. 5196 note) is amended--
        (1) in subsection (a)--
            (A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``, including its agents 
        or authorized volunteers,''; and
            (B) in paragraph (5), by striking ``or town'' and all that 
        follows and inserting ``town, or other governmental agency, 
        governmental authority, or governmental institution with the 
        power to sue or be sued in its own name, within the National 
        Capital Region.'';
        (2) in subsection (b)(1), in the matter preceding subparagraph 
    (A), by striking ``, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
    Authority, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, and any 
    other governmental agency or authority''; and
        (3) in subsection (d), by striking ``or employees'' each place 
    that term appears and inserting ``, employees, or agents''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Case 1:11-cv-02499-LTB Document 4 Filed 09/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02499-LTB Document 4 Filed 09/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02499-LTB Document 4 Filed 09/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02499-LTB Document 4 Filed 09/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
No. 72-1288.

#### United Pacific Insurance Co. *v.*Discount Co., Inc., et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,495,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,934,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   367,000
<INVENTORY>                                    518,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,223,000
<PP&E>                                         623,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 283,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,563,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,208,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        69,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,286,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,563,000
<SALES>                                      6,666,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,666,000
<CGS>                                        6,201,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,201,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (493,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (493,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (493,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02429-RPM-GJR

RICHARD LAROY DAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNIVERSAL WELL SERVICES, INC., d/b/a EASTERN RESERVOIR SERVICES,

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

______________________________________________________________________________

WHEREAS, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), the parties have jointly stipulated to the

dismissal of this action with prejudice, each party to bear his or its own costs.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice, each party to

bear his or its own costs.

Dated this 28th day of March, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

_________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02429-RPM-GJR Document 28 Filed 03/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11–cv–02444–WYD–KMT

AMERICAN WEB, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

v. 

FLOM CORPORATION, a Maryland corporation,

Defendant/Counter-Claimant.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA

This matter is before the court on “Flom’s Unopposed Motion for Protective Order.” (Doc. No.

32, filed Feb. 16, 2012.) The Motion is DENIED and the proposed Protective Order is

REFUSED. The parties are granted leave to submit a motion for protective order and revised

form of protective order consistent with the comments contained here.

Gillard v. Boulder Valley School District, 196 F.R.D. 382 (D. Colo. 2000), set out certain

requirements for the issuance of a blanket protective order such as the one sought here. Among

other things, any information designated by a party as confidential must first be reviewed by a

lawyer who will certify that the designation as confidential is “based on a good faith belief that

[the information] is confidential or otherwise entitled to protection.” Gillard, 196 F.R.D. at 386. 

The proposed Protective Order does not comply with the requirements established in Gillard. 

Therefore, it is ORDERED that the Motion for Protective Order (Doc. No. 32) is DENIED

without prejudice, and the proposed Protective Order is REFUSED. 

Dated: February 16, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02444-WYD-KMT Document 34 Filed 02/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1