alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION IN THE 

OF MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS 

200 Harry S. Truman Pkwy, Suite 300 OF MARYLAND 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Petitioner 

V. 

Jennifer Vetter Landeo 

Misc. Docket AG 

No.94 

September Term, 2015 

Respondent 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of the Joint Petition for Disbarment by Consent filed herein pursuant 

to Maryland Rule 16-772, in which Respondent admits she committed professional misconduct 

in violation of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15 and 8.4(a) and (d) of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of 

Professional Conduct, it is this 1.9tbday of May ,2036, 

ORDERED, that Respondent, Jennifer Vetter Landeo, be and she is hereby disbarred 

from the practice of law in the State of Maryland; and it is further 

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall remove the name of Jennifer Vetter Landeo 

from the register of attorneys in the Court and certify that fact to the Trustees of the Client 

Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and all clerks of all judicial tribunals in this State in 

accordance with Maryland Rule I 6-772(d). 

/s/ Mary Ellen Barbera 

Chief Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2917 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2917

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen

                                 An Act

 
  To expand the program of priority review to encourage treatments for 
                           tropical diseases.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Adding Ebola to the FDA Priority 
Review Voucher Program Act''.
SEC. 2. PRIORITY REVIEW TO ENCOURAGE TREATMENTS FOR TROPICAL DISEASES.
    Section 524 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
360n) is amended--
        (1) in subsection (a)(3)--
            (A) by redesignating subparagraph (Q) as subparagraph (R);
            (B) by inserting after subparagraph (P) the following:
            ``(Q) Filoviruses.''; and
            (C) in subparagraph (R), as so redesignated, by striking 
        ``regulation by'' and inserting ``order of''; and
        (2) in subsection (b)--
            (A) in paragraph (2), by adding ``There is no limit on the 
        number of times a priority review voucher may be transferred 
        before such voucher is used.'' after the period at the end; and
            (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``365 days'' and 
        inserting ``90 days''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
No. 12,285.

#### Trout *v.*Perciful.

Landdoed and *Tenant.*— Lease.—Condition *as to Sale.*— Pretended. *Sale to Defraud Lessee.*— Damages.—Where a lease is executed, to be effective on the condition that the owner of the land does not sell it, a sale in good faith is contemplated, and if the lessee is defrauded of his rights under the lease by a pretended sale made for that purpose, he may maintain an action against the lessor for damages.

*Pbactice.*— Motion *for New Trial.*— Questions as to the admission of evidence, and as to the assessment of damages, which are not presented by a motion for a new trial, will not be considered.

From the Clinton Circuit Court.

*J. V. Kent*and *J. W. Merritt,*for appellant.

Elliott, J. —

The complaint of the appellee contains these *533allegations: That the appellant leased to him a tract of land for the term of one year; that the taking effect of the lease was conditioned on the contingency that the appellant did not sell the land ,• that the appellee was ready and willing to pay the rent stipulated; that the appellant made a pretended sale of the land to one John Young, and put him.in possession of part of it; that the pretended sale was made for the fraudulent purpose of depriving appellee of the land under his lease; that there was no consideration paid by Young, and that the appellant has wrongfully refused to allow appellee to take possession under his lease.

Filed March 6, 1886.

The complaint was not demurred to, but is here assailed by the assignment of errors. We think that the error is not well assigned, for, though the complaint is not well drawn, it is sufficient to resist an attack made after verdict. It shows that the sale was a fraudulent one, made for the purpose of defrauding the lessee out of his rights under the lease, and such a sale is not one that will defeat the contract; for, where a contract makes a sale a condition, it means a sale in good faith, and not a fraudulent one. Parties who contract respecting a sale have in contemplation a sale in good faith, and not one founded in fraud. It would be strange, indeed, if a lessor could, by a fraudulent sale made for the purpose of defeating his lessee, avoid the lease, and thus avail himself of his own wrong.

The objections suggested to the admission of evidence can not be considered, for there are no causes stated in the motion for a new trial presenting any questions upon the admission of evidence. We can not disturb the verdict upon the evidence.

There is no question presented by the motion for a new trial as to the assessment of damages, and hence no such question is presented to us.

Judgment affirmed.
# News

## U.S. Air Force LogoUnited States Air Force

# Senior leader announcement: Week of May 20

              - Published  May 20, 2021
              - Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs

**ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) --  **
Acting Secretary of the Air Force John P. Roth announces the following:

**General officer assignments:**Brig. Gen. Joel L. CareyFrom: Commander, 18th Wing, Pacific Air Forces, Kadena Air Base, JapanTo: Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations, Headquarters Allied Air Command, Allied Command Operations, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Ramstein AB, Germany

Brig. Gen. Benjamin R. MaitreFrom: Assistant Commanding General – Support, Joint Special Operations Command, United States Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North CarolinaTo: Director, Force Structure, Requirements, Resources and Strategic Assessments, J-8, Headquarters United States Special Operations Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida

Brig. Gen. (S) Brian S. LaidlawFrom: Principal Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, Arlington, VirginiaTo: Deputy Military Representative, United States Delegation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Military Committee, United States European Command, Brussels, Belgium

**Senior leader assignments:**Mr. Brian A. StokesFrom: Deputy Director (Acting), Capability and Resources Integration, Directorate of Capability and Resources Integration, United States Cyber Command, Fort Meade, MarylandTo: Deputy Director, Capability and Resources Integration, Directorate of Capability and Resources Integration, United States Cyber Command, Fort Meade, Maryland

Mr. Jeffrey P. DommFrom: Supervisory General Engineer, Air Force Civil Engineer Center, Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center, Air Force Materiel Command, Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, TexasTo: Director, Installations, Air Force Civil Engineer Center, Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center, Air Force Materiel Command, JB San Antonio-Lackland, Texas

Chief Master Sgt. Alvin R. DyerFrom: Command Chief Master Sergeant, 96th Test Wing, Air Force Materiel Command, Eglin AFB, Florida To: Command Chief Master Sergeant, 7th Air Force, Pacific Air Forces, Osan AB, South Korea  

DAFSenior LeadersUSAFAir Forceofficer assignmentsretirementUnited States Air Force
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4964]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                            MEDICARE TAX CUT

  (Mr. GUTIERREZ asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have now unveiled their 
slash-for-cash budget.
  The Republicans will slash Medicare by nearly $300 billion to get the 
cash for a tax cut of that same amount.
  How?
  It's simple.
  If you are a senior citizen, you will just have to cough up about 
$3,500 in out-of-pocket costs to pay for Medicare cuts.
  Then, the top 1 percent of the wealthiest American families can rake 
in over $20,000 each in tax cuts.
  See? Simple. Slash for cash.
  In fact, the Republicans could make the whole process much simpler.
  With this handy envelope.
  Elderly Americans--those who guided us out of a depression and 
through a world war, those who educated us, fed us and led us--you just 
put your money in here.
  Then send if off to the wealthy, in care of the Republican Party, 
here inside the beltway.
  But, look at the bright side.
  If the Republicans are feeling generous, maybe they will kick in for 
the stamps so that you seniors can send in your money.

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,609
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,352
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    159,018
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          24,156
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        231,982
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,290
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 438,182
<DEPOSITS>                                     272,876
<SHORT-TERM>                                     7,907
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,838
<LONG-TERM>                                    123,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            20
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,291
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 438,182
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,679
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,704
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    13
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,396
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,827
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,626
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,770
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      105
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,987
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,003
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,003
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,702
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.75
<LOANS-NON>                                        674
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,243
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       59
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,290
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,290
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                               Exhibit 11

<TABLE>
                                         ENGINEERED SUPPORT SYSTEMS, INC.
                                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                     (in thousands, except per share amounts)

<CAPTION>
                                                               Three Months Ended                   Six Months Ended
                                                                    April 30                            April 30
                                                          -----------------------------       ----------------------------
                                                              2001              2000              2001             2000
                                                          -----------       -----------       -----------      -----------
<S>                                                       <C>               <C>               <C>              <C>
NET INCOME                                                $     4,444       $     2,570       $     8,285      $     5,144
                                                          ===========       ===========       ===========      ===========

BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE

     Average basic shares outstanding                           9,220             8,730             9,160            8,692
                                                          ===========       ===========       ===========      ===========

                                                          $      0.48       $      0.29       $      0.90      $      0.59
                                                          ===========       ===========       ===========      ===========



DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE

     Average basic shares outstanding                           9,220             8,730             9,160            8,692

     Net effect of dilutive stock options(1)                      646               221               573              204
                                                          -----------       -----------       -----------      -----------
                                                                9,866             8,951             9,733            8,896
                                                          ===========       ===========       ===========      ===========

                                                          $      0.45       $      0.29       $      0.85      $      0.58
                                                          ===========       ===========       ===========      ===========


<FN>
(1) Based on the treasury stock method

(2) All computations have been restated to reflect a five-for-four stock
    split effected by the Company on March 16, 2001
</TABLE>


                                    15
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00603-CV

ROSALINDA GARCIA

v.

COSTA MESSA RESTAURANT, CHRISTOPHER G. ACOSTA,

HAIDAR PROPERTIES LTD

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 7 of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CL-20-4624-G

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal will be taxed against the 

party incurring the same.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 11, 2023
News United States Air Force
 JB Anacostia-Bolling nurse earns top Air Force civilian awardPublished May 26, 2017
                        
                        By Kathleen Murray
                        
                        
                        AFPC Talent Acquisition Division
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH (AFNS) --**
                Joy Anderson, a registered nurse at the Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling Outpatient Clinic in Washington, D.C., was recently named the Air Force Medical Service’s 2016 Civilian Nurse of the Year. 
Each year, the award recognizes an Air Force civilian nurse who has made exceptional contributions to the practice of military medicine and has served as a role model in the nursing services profession. 
“I joined the nursing profession because I care,” Anderson said. “I enjoy helping people reach their healthiest potential. It’s more than just a job. When you work with service members who have been to war, and their families, the satisfaction is tremendous.”
Anderson is a certified ambulatory care nurse and was recognized for her ongoing commitment to preventive health education and ambulatory care.
Her many duties include performing intramuscular/intravenous injections, assisting children with asthma breathing treatments, conducting walk-in pregnancy tests, rehydrating patients with intravenous fluids, coordinating care between facilities, conducting “telephone” triage, and educating children and adults about safety hazards, as well as numerous other tasks. 
“I am very grateful for the award, but it was absolutely a team effort,” Anderson said.  
Anderson, a retired Air Force nurse, is one of about 180,000 civilians who make up the Air Force civilian service. 
For more information about Air Force personnel programs, go to **myPers**. Individuals who do not have a myPers account can request one by **following these instructions**.medical 



AFPC 



AFMS 



afdw 



award 



civilian 



JB San Antonio 



JB Anacostia-Bolling 



FM
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55737-55738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22816]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Del Norte Resource Advisory Committee (RAC)

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Del Norte Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in 
Crescent City, California. The committee meeting is authorized under 
the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination (SRS) Act 
(Pub. L. 110-343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act.

DATES: The meeting will be held September 27 and 28, 2010, from 6 p.m. 
to 8:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Del Norte County Unified 
School District, Board Room, 301 West Washington Boulevard, Crescent 
City, California 95531.

[[Page 55738]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Ranieri, Committee Coordinator, 
Six Rivers National Forest, at (707) 441-3673; e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#157f67747b7c70677c5573663b7370713b6066"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="90fae2f1fef9f5e2f9d0f6e3bef6f5f4bee5e3">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. The 
public will present their Title II Project Proposals to the RAC. Public 
input opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the 
opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

    Dated: Sept. 7, 2010.
Tyrone Kelley,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2010-22816 Filed 9-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Hall, Appellee, *v.*The Kroger Grocery *&*Baking Co., Appellant.

(Decided January 5, 1940.)

*Mr. Virgil P. Cline,*for appellee.

*Mr. Sor ace 8. Kerr,*for appellant.

By the Court.

This matter is before this court upon a motion of the plaintiff, appellee herein, to dismiss the appeal by the defendant, appellant herein, on the ground that such appeal is not from any judgment or final order of the Court of Common Pleas and that, therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

The facts necessary for the consideration of the matter may be briefly stated. In 1936, a prosecution was instituted against the plaintiff for forgery based upon the proper preliminary affidavits. The grand jury returned a “no bill” to the indictment. The plaintiff thereupon brought an action for false arrest against the defendant and subsequent to the filing of the plaintiff’s petition and prior to the trial, an indictment was returned against the plaintiff for forgery. Prior to the civil trial, the court considered the effect of the pending indictment and concluded that the question raised should be determined on the trial of the case and the case being then submitted to a jury, a verdict for $5000 was returned.

The defendant moved for a new trial, which was granted on the ground that the verdict was excessive *562and that the court erred in submitting the question of the validity of the indictment to the jury.

Thereafter, the defendant moved the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s petition for the reason that such petition was prematurely filed. This motion was overruled.

Thereupon, on the same day, the defendant gave notice of appeal on questions of law. The question before us is whether the overruling of a motion to dismiss the cause of action is a final order from which appeal may be taken or whether it is simply an interlocutory order, the prejudicial effect of which may be considered if the action on future trial results in a verdict and final order from which appeal may be properly prosecuted.

Section 12223-2, General Code, provides that an order affecting a substantial right in an action when in effect it determines the action and prevents a judgment, etc., is a final order which may be reviewed.

The order of the court overruling the motion of the defendant to dismiss does not determine the action, nor does it prevent a final judgment.

The order was simply to the effect that the petition, as filed, was not subject to a motion to dismiss because of the pendency of an untried indictment.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained.

*Motion sustained.*

Hornbeck, P. J., Geiger and Barnes, JJ., concur.
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 Quarterly Report of Document Security Systems, inc. (the *“Company* ”)
      on
      Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the *“Report”* ),
      I,
      Philip Jones, Controller and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,
      respectfully certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of the section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








Date:
      May
      15, 2006








/s/Philip
      Jones


Philip
      Jones


Controller/Principal
      Accounting Officer





38
[No. 17475-1-III.

Division Three.

March 23, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Appellant,*v. Andy J. Valdez, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Grant County, No. 97-1-00678-6, Evan E. Sperline, J., entered April 21, 1998. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, J., concurred in by Kurtz, C.J., and Schultheis, J.