alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
865 A.2d 659

#### IN THE MATTER OF RAFAEL A. PRADO, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 016881978).

January 31, 2005.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 04-038, concluding that RAFAEL A. PRADO, formerly of JERSEY CITY, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1978, and who has been temporarily suspended from practice since November 22, 2003, for failure to pay a fee arbitration award, should be suspended from practice for a period of *314three months for unethical conduct in a matter certified to the Disciplinary Review Board pursuant to *Rule*1:20 — 4(f)(2);

And RAFAEL A. PRADO having failed to appear on the return date of the Order to Show Cause issued by the Court it this matter;

And subsequent to the return date of the Order to Show Cause, the Court having received supplemental records that address respondent’s mental and physical condition and his living circumstances since 2002;

And the Court having determined on the basis of the record as supplemented that respondent lacks the capacity to practice law and is incapable of assisting counsel or representing himself in defense of any ethics proceedings;

And the Court further having concluded on the basis of the record as supplemented that RAFAEL A. PRADO should not be deemed to have received notice of the proceedings against him, including the fee arbitration proceedings, the petition for temporary suspension, and the current ethics matter;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that RAFAEL A. PRADO shall be transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to *Rule*1:20-12, effective immediately, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that the determination of the District VI Fee Arbitration Committee in District Docket No. VI-02-042F in favor of Luis Guerriero, is hereby vacated; and it is further

ORDERED that Luis Guerriero may apply to Maurice Langer, Esquire, Attorney Trustee appointed for respondent’s practice, for the return of any unearned retainer paid to respondent, and if the Attorney Trustee finds the refund warranted but cannot satisfy the claim from respondent’s attorney account, then Luis Guerriero may file a claim with the New Jersey Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, which shall consider such claim; and it is further

*315ORDERED that the Order of temporary suspension filed by the Court on October 22, 2003, effective November 22, 2003, including the requirement that respondent pay a $500 sanction to the Disciplinary Oversight Committee, is hereby vacated; and it is further

ORDERED that the Order to Show Cause issued by the Court on July 26,2004, is hereby discharged; and it is further

ORDERED that the decision of the Disciplinary Review Board in DRB 04-038 is hereby vacated.
##### 



Exhibit 32.3 LIBERTY PROPERTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY
RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Liberty Property Trust (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, WILLIAM P. HANKOWSKY, Chief Executive Officer of Liberty Property Trust (the
sole general partner of the Company), certify, in connection with Rule
13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that based on 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 result of operations of the Company. /s/ WILLIAM P. HANKOWSKY  
 Date: May 7, 2004
#### STATE ex rel. Theron J. CHAISSON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2650.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 2011.

In re Chaisson, Theron J.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. CR116180; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KA-09-119.

*950Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the application to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, for its consideration.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7006
ARSEAN L. HICKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. A. BRAXTON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-885-1) Submitted: August 11, 2004 Decided: October 28, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arsean L. Hicks, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Arsean L. Hicks appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely filed. An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude that Hicks has not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 185 (Friday, September 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58347-58348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23899]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of Central Idaho Resource Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 110-343), the Salmon-Challis 
National Forest's Central Idaho Resource Advisory Committee will 
conduct a business meeting which is open to the public.

DATES: Thursday, October 7, 2010, beginning at 1 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Public Lands Center, 1206 South Challis Street, Salmon, 
Idaho.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda topics will include review of RAC 
2010

[[Page 58348]]

projects, planning for the 2011 project approval meetings and other RAC 
business. The meeting is an open public forum. Some RAC members may 
attend the meeting by conference call, telephone, or electronically.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank V. Guzman, Forest Supervisor and 
Designated Federal Officer, at 208-756-5111.

    Dated: September 10, 2010.
Frank V. Guzman,
Forest Supervisor, Salmon-Challis National Forest, Public Lands Center, 
1206 South Challis Street, Salmon, Idaho.
[FR Doc. 2010-23899 Filed 9-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 1999 and the Consolidated Statement of
Operations for the three months ended March 31, 1999 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000921112
<NAME> LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          14,726
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,879
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,119
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,605
<PP&E>                                       3,113,133
<DEPRECIATION>                                 231,514
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,985,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,342
<BONDS>                                      1,481,522
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    120,814
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,158,242
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,985,212
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               113,489
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,970
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,128
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,753
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,638
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             34,638
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,678
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.45
        

</TABLE>
#### Walter J. HORRELL v. Lisa C. MATTHEWS.

No. 2011-C-1848.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 2011.

In re Horrell, Walter J.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 2006-10962; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1694.

Denied.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer of Valley Financial Corporation, certifies that the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Valley Financial Corporation at the dates and for the periods indicated.  The foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code and is subject to the knowledge and willfulness qualifications contained in Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350(c).

 

Dated:  May 13, 2009

 

|   | /s/ Ellis L. Gutshall_____________ |
|--------|------------------------------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000920941
<NAME> RED ROOF INNS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-08-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                          10,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,544
<ALLOWANCES>                                       603
<INVENTORY>                                     10,203
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,357
<PP&E>                                         894,371
<DEPRECIATION>                                  81,318
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 936,197
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,560
<BONDS>                                        516,538
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           285
<OTHER-SE>                                     341,269
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   936,197
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               264,611
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  120,968
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                74,888
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   314
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,704
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,737
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,634
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,103
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (746)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,357
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .72
        

</TABLE>
627 A.2d 1134

#### IN THE MATTER OF THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY ELECTION FOR THE STATE SENATE 24TH DISTRICT. RICHARD KAMIN v. GEORGE T. DAGGETT.

May 4, 1993.

Cross-petition for certification is granted, the judgment of the Appellate Division is modified and, as modified, is affirmed. Opinions setting forth the reasoning of the Court will issue in due course.

Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices HANDLER, O’HERN, GARIBALDI, and STEIN join in this Order.

Justices CLIFFORD and POLLOCK would affirm the judgment below without modification.
868 A.2d 1008

#### IN THE MATTER OF RICK A. GARCIA, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 26381986).

March 10, 2005.

ORDER

The Office of Attorney Ethics having filed a petition with the Supreme Court pursuant to *Rule*l:20-3(g)(4) and *Rule*l:20-ll(a) recommending that RICK A. GARCIA of CLIFTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1986, be immediately temporarily suspended from the practice of law, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that RICK A. GARCIA is temporarily suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, and until further Order of this Court; and it is further

*589ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by RICK A. GARCIA, pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6 shall be restrained from disbursement except on application to this Court, for good cause shown, pending the further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that RICK A. GARCIA be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension and that he comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEET OF MULTIMEDIA ACCESS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES AS
OF  MARCH  31,  1997  (UNAUDITED)  AND THE  RELATED  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT  OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997(UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
 </LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1
<CURRENCY>                               US DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1
<CASH>                                   3,665,196
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              195,568
<ALLOWANCES>                                42,000
<INVENTORY>                                450,334
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         4,335,705
<PP&E>                                     918,785
<DEPRECIATION>                             369,256
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           5,085,336
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    1,065,834
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                       817
<OTHER-SE>                               4,018,685
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             5,085,336
<SALES>                                    244,802
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           259,533
<CGS>                                      142,977
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              142,977
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           621,205
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             5,498
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         216,047
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (1,406,533)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (1,406,533)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                           (1,406,533)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (0.21)
                                        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6265

JOHN GRAYSON ATKINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK; CARLA O’KONEK; MICHAEL EASLEY, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-60-5-BR) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 25, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Grayson Atkinson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: John Grayson Atkinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Atkinson’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Atkinson v. Beck , No. CA-00-60-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Jan. 12, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7230 

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

226 West Main Street in Lake City, South Carolina, as the ‘‘Postmaster 

Frazier B. Baker Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 10, 2018 

Mr. CLYBURN (for himself, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. 

WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. RICE of South Carolina, Mr. GOWDY, and 

Mr. SANFORD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 226 West Main Street in Lake City, South 

Carolina, as the ‘‘Postmaster Frazier B. Baker Post 

Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. POSTMASTER FRAZIER B. BAKER POST OFFICE. 

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

5 Postal Service located at 226 West Main Street in Lake 

6 City, South Carolina, shall be known and designated as 

7 the ‘‘Postmaster Frazier B. Baker Post Office’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7230 IH

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 ‘‘Postmaster Frazier 

5 B. Baker Post Office’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Sally VELEZ, Appellant, v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION and Strike Industries, Inc., Appellees.

No. 1D11-3850.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 9, 2011.

Sally Velez, pro se, Appellant.

A. Robert Whaley, General Counsel, and M. Elaine Howard, Deputy General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee Unemployment Appeals Commission.

PER CURIAM.

The claimant seeks review of an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission which found her to be disqualified from receipt of benefits. The claimant did not appear at the hearing before the appeals referee and the employer presented evidence. The appeals referee found for the claimant based on that evidence but the UAC disagreed and reversed. In this appeal, the claimant argues that she did not receive proper notice of the hearing before the appeals referee. The Commission moves this court to relinquish jurisdiction to it so it can remand to the appeals referee to make findings regarding notice to the claimant regarding the hearing.. If the claimant did not receive notice, she lost the opportunity to present evidence which might have led to a different result before the Unemployment Appeals Commission. Even if the appeals referee finds that the claimant did receive proper notice, such finding should be included in an amended UAC order. Accordingly, we treat the motion to relinquish jurisdiction as a concession of error and reverse and remand to the Commission for further proceedings. *See Stacey v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing Home Administrators,*547 So.2d 241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

BENTON, C.J., HAWKES and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.