alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
582 A.2d 296

#### IN THE MATTER OF RAMON A. IRIZARRY, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

November 27, 1990.

ORDER

RAMON A. IRIZARRY of NEWARK, who was admitted to the Bar of this State in 1980, having been Ordered to Show Cause on November 26, 1990 why this Court’s Order of temporary suspension should not be continued pending the disposition of ethics proceedings against him, and he, by his attorney, having consented to a continuation of his temporary suspension;

It is ORDERED that the suspension of RAMON A. IRIZARRY shall continue pending further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall continue to be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension and that he shall continue to comply with Regulation 23 of the Administrative Guidelines Governing Suspended Attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that the Office of Attorney Ethics shall take such protective action pursuant to *Rule*1:20-11(c) as it deems appropriate, including the transfer to the Clerk of the Superior Court *464for deposit in the Superior Court Trust Fund of the attorney-account funds held in any financial institution by RAMON A. IRIZARRY, which funds were restrained from disbursement by this Court’s Order of July 17, 1990.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-30323

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LESTER J. MILLET, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CR-187-ALL-T

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

October 21, 1999

Before JOLLY, JONES and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lester Millet appeals from the district court’s denial of

his motion for new trial, evidentiary hearing, and in camera

inspection of evidence. Millet’s motion stems from his 1996

conviction by jury for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951 (Hobbs

Act); § 1952 (Travel Act), and §§ 2, 1956 (money laundering). 

The convictions were based on Millet’s misuse of his official

position as Parish President of St. John the Baptist Parish,

Louisiana, in persuading officials of Formosa Chemical

Corporation (Formosa) to purchase land in the parish. Millet’s 
No. 99-30323

-2-

convictions were affirmed on appeal. United States v. Millet,

123 F.3d 268 (5th Cir. 1997).

Millet argues that he is entitled to a new trial under Fed.

R. Crim. P. 33 because of newly discovered evidence. Millet

contends that an official of Formosa would now testify that

Millet’s activities were not a factor in Formosa’s decision to

abandon plans to build a rayon plant in the parish, and thus

Millet’s activities did not have the requisite effect on

interstate commerce necessary to support a conviction under the

Hobbs Act. Millet also contends that the Government suppressed

this testimony in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83

(1963).

This court will reverse the denial of a motion for a new

trial only when there has been an abuse of discretion. United

States v. Pena, 949 F.2d 751, 758 (5th Cir. 1991). The district

court did not abuse its discretion in denying Millet’s motion

because Millet has not shown that the evidence is in fact newly

discovered since the official in question testified at trial, nor

has Millet shown that the evidence probably would produce a

different result in a new trial. United States v. MMR Corp., 954

F.2d 1040, 1046-47 (5th Cir. 1992). Evidence is material under

Brady when there is a reasonable probability that the result of

the proceeding would have been different if the evidence had been

disclosed to the defense. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667,

682 (1985). Millet has not shown that the Government suppressed

the testimony in question or that the testimony is material Brady

evidence.
No. 99-30323

-3-

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1
 
 
 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 Coastal Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Manuel J. Mehos, Chairman of the Board and 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:
 
 
 (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.
 
 
 
 
 Dated: 11/14/03    By:  /s/ Manuel J. Mehos
 Manuel J. Mehos
 Chairman of the Board and Chief
 Executive Officer
 
  
 (A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Coastal Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Coastal Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.)
[1014131-DePisigal #1597 

llarrio or Hsvru 

' In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-12291717 

Deckled by MaPIA Director February 934, 1966• 

Since a physicist is a member of the professions within the meaning of sections 

101(a) (n) and 203(a) (3), Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by 

P.L. 89-236, visa petition is approved to accord beneficiary, a qualified physicist, third preference classification. 

Discussion: The petition was filed to accord the beneficiary a third 

.preference classification as a member of tl,r,professions based on his 

qualifications is a phisicist. The beneficiary is a male, native and 

citizen of China, married, age 29, presently residing in Baltimore, 

Maryland; with his Wife. 

The beneficiary received a bachelor of science degree in 1959 from 

Tunghai University, Taichung, Taiwan, and a master of arts degree 

in physics in. June 1963 from Dartmouth College, • Hanover, New 

Hampshire. He served as a teaching fellow in the Physics Department, Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, Brooklyn; New York, from 

September 1963 to November 1965. He has been -employed as a 

physicist by lirestinghOuse Electric Corporation Baltimore, Maryland, from December 1965 to date. The beneficiary intends to engage in his profession in the United States as a physicist. 

A certification pursuant to section` 212(a) (14) of the Act, as 

amended, has been issued by the Department of Labor. - 

Physicists are listed among professional occupations under -code 

0-3513 in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, volume II, second 

edition, prepared -by the United States Department of Labor. In 

the third edition of the above publication, phisicists are listed under 

professional, technical, and managerial occupations, cosies Q23.081 

and .088. Occupations in this physical scientist group are concerned 

with the investigation of the laws of matter and energy and their. 

applications to problems in such fields-as science, engineering, medicine, and production: The Occupational Outlook Handbook, 1966-67 

. - 

652 
Interim Decision #1597 

edition, of the United States Department of Labor, states that a 

bachelor's degree with a major in physics is the minimum entrance 

requirement for young people seeking careers as physicists; that 

physicists with master's degrees are able to qualify for many 

research jobs in private industry, educational institutions, and government; and that a doctor's degreels required for high-level college 

and university teaching positions. The average (median) annual 

salary for physicists was $12,000 in 1964, according to the National 

Science Foundation's National Register of Scientific and Technical 

Personnel. 

From the foregoing it has been established that the beneficiary is 

a qualified physicist and as such is a member of the professions 

within the meaning of sections 101 (a) (32) and 203(a) (3) of the Act, 

as amended. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the petition be approved and the beneficiary accorded third preference under section 203.(a) (3) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended.
News United States Air Force
 Pathways to Blue shows ROTC cadets the wayPublished April 20, 2016
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Travis Beihl
                        
                        
                        81st Training Wing Public Affairs
                **KEESLER AIR FORCE BASE, Miss. (AFNS) --**
                More than 180 ROTC cadets from 22 colleges and 31 active-duty enlisted Airmen attended the second annual Pathways to Blue initiative April 15-16 hosted by Second Air Force at Keesler Air Force Base.Cadets and Airmen learned about job opportunities, toured aircraft and sat down with officers for one-on-one mentorship and varying perspectives on commissioned life in the Air Force.“Cadets can gain a lot from the perspective of mentors actually performing the mission,” said Maj. Gen. Mark Brown, the Second Air Force commander. “What we hope to achieve is to explain what really happens when you choose a specialty and join the Air Force; to show what it’s really like to be a cyber operator or a remotely piloted aircraft pilot. The ‘art of the possible’ inside the Air Force is what we are talking about here.”Pathways to Blue aims to help build future leaders in the Air Force, as well as highlight different routes to becoming an Air Force officer. The target audience is freshmen and sophomores along with enlisted members who may be undecided about various career fields once they get commissioned.The event kicked off with an introduction to the mentors then quickly moved to hands-on demonstrations with various career fields ranging from aerospace medicine and cyber operations to battlefield Airmen, space and missiles, aviation, medical, and a mixture of support fields.“This is my second Pathways to Blue and it’s been very engaging and hands on,” said Kayla Davis, a Tuskegee University Air Force ROTC cadet. “I’ve wanted to be a nurse since I was little because my mother was a nurse. The mentors have helped me better understand the different paths I could take to become one in the Air Force.”As an event designed to showcase the Air Force’s mission diversity and commissioning options, Pathways to Blue mentors also appreciated the event’s scope.“To see something like this 20 years ago would have been mind-blowing,” said Maj. Sarah Abel, an 81st Medical Operations Squadron clinical nurse specialist. “I’ve been in the Air Force for 16 years now and this would have been a game-changer for my college’s ROTC program.”Brown also offered his personal take on opportunities in the armed forces for cadets attending Pathways to Blue.“I can be what I want to be in the Air Force,” he said. “Regardless of my background, zip code, gender, race or economic standings, I can rise based on my capabilities in the Air Force. That is exactly what we want these cadets and all others to know.”cadet 



ROTC 



Keesler AFB
#### STATE ex rel. Henry D. FOSTER v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0074.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re Foster, Henry D.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 497-456; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1574.

Denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 59781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24300]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7187]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Imagining the Past in France, 1250-1500''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Imagining the Past in France, 1250-1500,'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the J. Paul Getty 
Museum, Los Angeles, CA, from on or about November 16, 2010, until on 
or about February 6, 2011, and at possible additional exhibitions or 
venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice 
of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202/632-6473). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-
5, L/PD, Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: September 22, 2010.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-24300 Filed 9-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
Order entered March 20 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 19 - 00109 - CV CATAPULT REALTY CAPI TAL LLC, Appellant V. TOBIAN JOHNSON, Appellee On Appeal from the 19 1st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 18 - 12714



### O RDER Before the Cour t is appellant’s unopposed motion for extension of time to file a brief. We GRANT appellant’s motion and ORDER the brief received on March 15, 2019 fi led as of the date of this order . Appellee’s brief is due by April 8 , 2019

. /s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1594 

To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic in Hermitage, Pennsylvania, as the Michael A. Marzano Department of Veterans 

Affairs Outpatient Clinic. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 20, 2007 

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. ALTMIRE, Mr. BRADY of 

Pennsylvania, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. 

SESTAK, Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. 

MURTHA, Mr. DOYLE, Mr. DENT, Mr. PITTS, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. TIM

MURPHY of Pennsylvania, and Mr. PLATTS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient 

Clinic in Hermitage, Pennsylvania, as the Michael A. 

Marzano Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient 

Clinic. 

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

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1594 IH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF MICHAEL A. MARZANO DE2 PARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OUT3 PATIENT CLINIC. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Department of Veterans Af5 fairs Outpatient Clinic in Hermitage, Pennsylvania, shall 

6 after the date of the enactment of this Act be known and 

7 designated as the ‘‘Michael A. Marzano Department of 

8 Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’. 

9 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, regula10 tion, map, document, record, or other paper of the United 

11 States to the outpatient clinic referred to in subsection 

12 (a) shall be considered to be a reference to the Michael 

13 A. Marzano Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient 

14 Clinic. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60467-60468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24550]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which

[[Page 60468]]

would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel, Cancer Metastasis.
    Date: October 4, 2010.
    Time: 12:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Hotel on Capitol Hill, 400 New Jersey 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20001.
    Contact Person: Syed M Quadri, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 6210, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892. 301-435-
1211. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4f3e3a2e2b3d263c0f2c3c3d6121262761282039"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4a3b3f2b2e3823390a29393864242322642d253c">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 24, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-24550 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Rife etc. *v.*Karns.

[No. 19,402.

Filed March 27, 1962.]

*227*Barrett, Barrett & McNagny, J. Michael O’Hara*and *J. A. Bruggeman,*all of Fort Wayne, for appellant.

*Campbell, Livingston, Dildine & Haynie, Thomas W. Yoder,*both of Fort Wayne, *Gates & Gates, Phil M. McNagny, Jr.,*both of Columbia City, and *Donald R. Mote,*of Wabash, for appellee.

Ryan, C. J.

The appellee, the plaintiff below, filed his complaint against the appellant, who was the defendant below, for alleged personal injuries arising out of an automobile collision. The cause was submitted to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the appellant and on which consistent judgment was entered. A motion for a new trial was filed by the appellee, which was sustained by the court. The appellant appealed under the authority of §2-3201 (b) Burns’ 1946 Replacement (1961 Supp.) :

> “(b) A ruling or order of the court granting a motion for a new trial shall be deemed to be a final judgment, and an appeal may be taken therefrom.”

This particular section was enacted as part of the Acts of 1959, ch. 25, §1, and introduces a new mode of procedure into our appellate practice.

The appellant asserts as one of the specifications in the assignment of error that the trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion to state the specific reasons for setting aside the verdict of the jury.

This is the first time this question has been presented to us under §2-3201 (b), Burns’, *supra.*Accordingly the court has seriously considered the matter and the conclusion which we have reached is that good practice requires the trial *228court to state the reasons for its decision in writing when a motion for new trial is sustained. As stated in 66 C. J. S. New Trial §210, p. 533:

> “. . . even in the absence of statute or rule, or at least in the absence of express reference thereto, it has been held that the court should as a matter of better practice state the grounds for its decision,. . .”

Being a new procedure under which we have no governing precedent in this jurisdiction, we deem it advisable to impose such a requirement at this time to establish good practice and to further the orderly administration of justice.

The cause is therefore remanded with instructions to state in writing the reasons for the sustaining of the motion for a new trial.

Ax, Cooper, and Myers, JJ., concur.

Note. — Reported in 181 N. E. 2d 239.
**Exhibit
      32.2**






CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT




SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of MakeMusic! Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-QSB for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Alan G. Shuler, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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.







October 26, 2005/s/ Alan G. ShulerChief Financial
              Officer




20
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                             FIRST INDUSTRIAL, L.P.
             COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND
                          PREFERRED UNIT DISTRIBUTIONS
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      12/31/00      12/31/99      12/31/98
                                                     ----------    ----------    ----------
<S>                                                   <C>           <C>           <C>
Income From Operations ............................   $104,386      $126,073      $ 83,067

Plus: Interest Expense and Amortization of Interest
Rate Protection Agreements and Deferred
Financing Costs ...................................     82,568        78,094        69,713
                                                      --------      --------      --------

Earnings Before Fixed Charges .....................   $186,954      $204,167      $152,780
                                                      ========      ========      ========

Fixed Charges and Preferred Unit Distributions ....   $ 87,771      $ 83,662      $ 73,356
                                                      ========      ========      ========

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and
Preferred Unit Distributions(a) ...................       2.13x         2.44x         2.08x
                                                      ========      ========      ========
</TABLE>


(a)  For purposes of computing the ratios of earnings to fixed charges and
     preferred unit distributions, earnings have been calculated by adding fixed
     charges (excluding capitalized interest) to income from operations before
     income allocated to minority interest. Fixed charges consist of interest
     costs, whether expensed or capitalized and amortization of interest rate
     protection agreements and deferred financing charges.
#### STATE ex rel. Michael J. DRIGHT v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2009-KH-2601.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Dright, Michael J.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 370-075; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1363.

Denied.

KNOLL and WEIMÉR, JJ., would grant.