alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UTILITY CONSTRUCTION CO., ETC., APPELLANT, v. BOROUGH OF SOUTH RIVER, ETC., RESPONDENT.

Submitted October 31, 1947

Decided January 29, 1948.

For the appellant, *Edmund A. Hayes*and *John T. Keefe.*

For the respondent, *George L. Burlon*and *Stanley S. Dickerson (Baruch S. Seidman,*of counsel).

*634Pee Curiam.

The judgment under review herein is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Colie in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Bodine, Donges, Wachenfeld, Eastwood, Burling, Wells, Dill, Freund, McLean, Schettino, JJ. 11.

*For reversal*— None.
814 A.2d 626

#### IN THE MATTER OF PASQUALE J. CARDONE, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 001551976)

February 4, 2003.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 02-183, recommending that PASQUALE J. CARDONE of NORTHFIELD, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1976, and who has been suspended from the practice of law since February 26, 1999, by Order of the Court filed January 28, 1999, be disbarred, based on respondent’s guilty plea to an information charging him with attempted income tax evasion, in violation of 28 *U.S.C.A.*§ 7201, conduct in violation of *RPC*8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness);

*156And PASQUALE J. CARDONE having failed to appear on the return date of the Order to Show Cause issued in this matter;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that PASQUALE J. CARDONE be disbarred, effective immediately, and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by PASQUALE J. CAR-DONE pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6, shall be restrained from disbursement except on application to this Court, for good cause shown, and shall be transferred by the financial institution to the Clerk of the Superior Court, who is directed to deposit the funds in the Superior Court Trust Fund pending the further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that PASQUALE J. CARDONE be and hereby is permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
CONSENT OF DIRECTORS
                   IN LIEU OF SPECIAL MEETING
                               OF
                  LIGHT MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.

     Pursuant to regulations and laws of the State of Nevada, specifically NRA
92A.200 articles of Mergers and Exchanges of Interest, the undersigned, being
all of the directors of Light Management Group, Inc. (Light) a Nevada
corporation, acting without a meeting, DO HEREBY UNANIMOUSLY ADOPT the following
resolutions and DO HEREBY UNANIMOUSLY CONSENT to the taking of the action
therein set forth.

     RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of Light deems it advisable and in
the best interest of the Company and its shareholders that the Company merge
with Exclusive Advertising, Inc. ("Exclusive"), and that Exclusive be merged
into Light, by way of an exchange of shares of the company for 100% of the
capital structure of Exclusive (the Exchange);

     FURTHER RESOLVED, that, the Exchange be effected pursuant to an Agreement
and Plan of Merger attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this
reference, and that the Exchange has been approved by the requisite
majority of shareholders of Light;

     FURTHER RESOLVED, that, the President of the Company is hereby authorized
and directed, on behalf of the Company to execute such Agreement and Plan of
Merger; and

     FURTHER RESOLVED, that any officer or officers of the Company are hereby
authorized and directed to procure any government authorizations, licenses
and/or permits, execute and file any documents and take any actions that such
officer(s) may deem to be necessary or desirable to accomplish the purposes of
the foregoing resolution.  The procurement of any such authorization(s),
license(s), and/or permit(s), the execution or filing of any document(s) or the
taking of any such action(s) by such officer(s) shall constitute conclusive
evidence that the officer(s) deemed such document(s) or action(s) to be
necessary or desirable to accomplish the purpose of these resolutions.

     The execution of this consent shall constitute a written waiver of any
notice required by the Laws of Nevada or the Company's By-laws.  The actions set
forth herein shall be effective when the last director signs this consent.


Light Management Group, Inc.            Date: March 24, 2000


By:_____________________________
Barrington L. Simon, CEO, Director




Light Management Group, Inc.


By:_____________________________
     Bryan Latimer, Director


Light Management Group, Inc.


By:_____________________________
     Ian Brock, Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EVENFLO & SPALDING HOLDINGS CORPORATION FOR THE 
QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE 
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,393
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  255,438
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,154
<INVENTORY>                                    223,215
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               503,426
<PP&E>                                         205,963
<DEPRECIATION>                                  89,986
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 868,880
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          337,591
<BONDS>                                        698,125
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           970
<OTHER-SE>                                    (190,467)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   868,880
<SALES>                                        393,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               393,600
<CGS>                                          277,655
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  277,655
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,575
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (45,584)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (15,481)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (30,103)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (30,103)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7329

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EVANS LEE GORDON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CR-89-75)

Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 17, 1996

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Evans Lee Gordon, Appellant Pro Se. John Granville Douglass, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Gordon, No. CR-89-75 (E.D. Va. Aug. 21, 1995). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 0- 0064 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RONALD ALAN HUMMEL,

Defendant and Appellant .

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 1 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 26 2021

03/26/2021
Case Number: DA 20-0064
EXHIBIT 32.2



WRITTEN STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350



The undersigned officer of Procom Technology, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that:



(i) the Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended April 30, 2003 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ EDWARD KIRNBAUEREdward KirnbauerActing Chief Financial Officer




Date: October 1, 2004



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to
accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made
before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
1 “[#35]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific

paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention

throughout this order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02575-REB-CBS

ASHBROOK SIMON-HARTLEY OPERATIONS, LP,

Plaintiff,

v.

MORAINE PARTNERS, LLC, d/b/a MORSTARCH,

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Blackburn, J.

The matter is before me on the Stipulation For Dismissal Without Prejudice [#35]1

filed January 6, 2012. After reviewing the stipulation and the file, I conclude that the stipulation

should be approved and that this action should be dismissed without prejudice.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Stipulation For Dismissal Without Prejudice [#35] filed January 6, 2012,

is APPROVED; and

2. That this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with the parties to pay their

own attorney fees and costs. 

Dated January 6, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02575-REB-CBS Document 36 Filed 01/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ANUHCO,
INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0000719271
<NAME> ANUHCO, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                            9021
<SECURITIES>                                      9957
<RECEIVABLES>                                    24975
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1188
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 52918
<PP&E>                                           43277
<DEPRECIATION>                                   19887
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   86812
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            11048
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            76
<OTHER-SE>                                       74485
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     86812
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                114883
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   113145
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   892
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  27
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1739
<INCOME-TAX>                                       887
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                852
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       852
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3572

_____________________________

TRAVIS LEE PARKER,

Appellant,

v.

SANDI SINGLETARY PARKER n/k/a

SANDI SINGLETARY GRANT,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

Michael A. Flowers, Judge.

June 6, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, OSTERHAUS, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Anna (Dina) F. Foster and Matthew E.W. Bryant of Pennington, 

P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

No appearance, for Appellee.
#### Willie CHESTNUT v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 190 (Tuesday, September 30, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 56856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23004]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Office of the Secretary


Privacy Act of 1974; Consolidation of Department of Homeland 
Security Office of the Inspector General Systems of Records

AGENCY: Privacy Office, DHS.

ACTION: Notice to consolidate one Privacy Act system of records notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of 
Homeland Security is giving notice that it proposes to consolidate the 
following Privacy Act system of records notices, FEMA/IG-1 General 
Investigative Files (55 FR 37182 September 7, 1990), into the existing 
Department of Homeland Security-wide system of records notice titled 
DHS/OIG-002 Office of Inspector General (OIG) Investigations Data 
Management System (IDMS) (70 FR 58448 October 6, 2005).

DATES: These changes will take effect on October 30, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy 
Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, by 
telephone (703) 235-0780 or facsimile (703) 235-0442.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy 
Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and as part of its ongoing integration and 
management efforts, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is 
consolidating the system of records notice, FEMA/IG-1 General 
Investigative Files (55 FR 37182 September 7, 1990), that has been 
issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency prior to the creation 
of the Department of Homeland Security.
    DHS will continue to collect and maintain records regarding 
investigations and will rely upon the existing DHS-wide system of 
records notice titled Office of Inspector General (OIG) Investigations 
Data Management System (IDMS) (70 FR 58448 October 6, 2005).
    Eliminating this notice will have no adverse impacts on 
individuals, but will promote the overall streamlining and management 
of DHS Privacy Act record systems.

    Dated: September 24, 2008.
Hugo Teufel III,
Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E8-23004 Filed 9-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P
EXHIBIT 32.1





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





In connection with the Quarterly Report of CDSI Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard J. Lampen, Chief Executive 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, to my 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 operations of the Company.





August 15, 2011


/s/ Richard J. LampenRichard J. LampenChairman and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                [AT&T letterhead]

                                                                    Exhibit 10.3



February 28, 2000




TeleCorp PCS, Inc.
1010 North Glebe Road, Suite 800
Arlington, Virginia 22201
Attn: Thomas H. Sullivan

         Reference is made to that certain Agreement and Plan of Reorganization
and Contribution dated February 28, 2000 (the "Merger Agreement") by and among
TeleCorp PCS, Inc. ("TeleCorp"), Tritel, Inc. and AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.
("AT&T"). Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Letter Agreement shall
have the meaning ascribed to them in the Merger Agreement.

         In the event that AT&T is unable to deliver or cause the delivery of
the Indus Assets, and AT&T neither delivers or causes to be delivered to the
Holding Company Replacement Assets, in lieu of terminating the Contribution
pursuant to Section 1.14(d)(ii) of the Merger Agreement, TeleCorp shall have the
option, exercisable by notice given within five days after receipt of the
Non-Replacement Notice, to elect to have AT&T's 10 MHz license for the Milwaukee
BTA constitute Replacement Assets, and to accept delivery of that license in
lieu of, and in full satisfaction of, AT&T's obligation to deliver the Indus
Assets.

         This letter Agreement shall terminate upon the earlier of notice by
TeleCorp to AT&T of its election to terminate this Letter Agreement, the Indus
Closing or the Closing.

                                           AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC.



                                           By:
                                               -------------------------

         Accepted and Agreed
         as of February 28, 2000

         TELECORP PCS, INC.


         By:
            -------------------------
         Thomas H. Sullivan
1 “[#17]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific

paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention

throughout this order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02587-REB-KMT

JOSEPHINE ROBERTS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO HOSPITAL AUTHORITY,

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Blackburn, J.

The matter is before me on the Stipulated Motion For Dismissal With

Prejudice [#17]1 filed February 23, 2012. After reviewing the motion and the file, I

conclude that the motion should be granted and that this action should be dismissed

with prejudice.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Stipulated Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice [#17] filed

February 23, 2012, is GRANTED;

2. That the Trial Preparation Conference set for November 16, 2012, is

VACATED;

3. That the jury trial set to commence November 26, 2012, is VACATED; and

Case 1:11-cv-02587-REB-KMT Document 18 Filed 02/24/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

4. That this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE with the parties to pay

their own attorney fees and costs. 

Dated February 24, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02587-REB-KMT Document 18 Filed 02/24/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-355-MSK-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. WAUNITA WEINGART

2. JOHN PHILLIP GALLEGOS

3. ALOIS CRAIG WEINGART,

Defendants.

 

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION REGARDING ACCEPTANCE

OF RESPONSIBILITY

 

The United States of America, by and through John F. Walsh, United States

Attorney for the District of Colorado and the undersigned Assistant United States

Attorneys, asks this Court to award a three level reduction in the defendant’s base offense

level pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline §3E1.1(a) and (b) based on the

defendant’s acceptance of responsibility. As grounds therefore, the government states:

The defendant has assisted authorities in the prosecution of his own misconduct by

timely notifying authorities of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the

government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the government and the Court to

allocate their resources efficiently. 

Based on the foregoing information, the United States respectfully requests the

defendant receive a total reduction of three levels in his base offense level for acceptance

-1-

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 304 filed 07/08/13 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 3
of responsibility pursuant to §3E1.1(a) and (b) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

Dated this 8 day of July, 2013. th

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN F. WALSH

United States Attorney

By: s/ Martha A. Paluch 

 Martha A. Paluch

Assistant United States Attorney

1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 700

Denver, Colorado 80202

Telephone: (303) 454-0100 

Facsimile: (303) 454-0404

E-mail: Martha.Paluch@usdoj.gov

By: s/ Linda Kaufman 

Linda Kaufman

Assistant United States Attorney

1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 700

Denver, Colorado 80202

Telephone: (303) 454-0100

Facsimile: (303) 454-0404

E-mail: Linda.Kaufman@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Government

-2-

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 304 filed 07/08/13 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on this 8 day of July, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing th

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION REGARDING ACCEPTANCE OFRESPONSIBILITY with the

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to

the following e-mail addresses:

Martin Adam Stuart

E-mail: martinstuartlaw@solucian.com

William Lewis Taylor

E-mail: wltaylorpc@gmail.com

Darlene Ann Bagley

E-mail: bagley@ridleylaw.com

Paula M. Ray

E-mail: paulamray@earthlnk.net

and I hereby certify that I have mailed or served the document or paper to the following

non-CM/ECF participants in the manner (e-mail, hand-delivery, etc.) indicated by the

non-participant's name:

Nicole D. Peterson - U.S. Probation Officer

E-mail: Nicole_Peterson@cod.uscourts.gov

 By: s/ Solange Reigel 

SOLANGE REIGEL

Legal Assistant

United States Attorney's Office

1225 - 17th Street, Suite 700

Denver, CO 80202

Telephone: (303) 454-0244

Fax: (303) 454-0402

E-mail: Solange.Reigel@usdoj.gov

-3-

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 304 filed 07/08/13 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 3