alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
861 A.2d 109

#### IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD B. GIRDLER, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 278731972).

November 29, 2004.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 04-083, concluding that RICHARD B. GIRDLER of LINCOLN PARK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1972, and who has been suspended from the practice of law since May 1, 2002, pursuant to Orders of the Court filed April *413, 2002, and March 3, 2004, should be suspended from practice for a period of three months for violating *RPC*1.3 (lack of diligence), *RPC*1.4(a) (failure to communicate with client), *RPC*8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with ethics authorities), and *RPC*8.4(a) (violation of Rules of Professional Conduct);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having further concluded that prior to reinstatement to practice, respondent should be required to demonstrate that he is fit to practice law as attested to by a mental health professional approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics;

And respondent having been ordered to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined;

And the Court having determined from its review of the matter that a one-year suspension from practice, consecutive to the three-month suspension ordered by the Court on March 3, 2004, is warranted and that respondent’s reinstatement to practice should be subject to conditions;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that RICHARD B. GIRDLER is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and until the further Order of the Court, retroactive to June 3, 2004; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent continue to be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension and that he continue to comply with *Rule*1:20-20; and it is further

ORDERED that pursuant to *Rule*l:20-20(c), respondent’s failure to comply with the Affidavit of Compliance requirement of *Rule*l:20-20(b)(15) may (1) preclude the Disciplinary Review Board from considering respondent’s petition for reinstatement for a period of up to six months from the date respondent files proof of compliance; (2) be found to constitute a violation of *RPC*8.1(b) and *RPC*8.4(e); and (3) provide a basis for an action for contempt pursuant to *Rule*1:10-2; and it is further

*42ORDERED that respondent be evaluated by the New Jersey Lawyers Assistance Program; and it is further

ORDERED that prior to reinstatement to practice, respondent shall demonstrate that he is fit to practice law, as attested to by a mental health professional approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics; and it is further

ORDERED that on reinstatement, respondent shall practice under the supervision of a practicing attorney approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics for a period of one year, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter; 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.
<PAGE>

                          AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE


          WHEREAS, COELHO ASSOCIATES LLC (the "Maker") made a Promissory Note to
the order of CROP GROWERS CORPORATION (the "Payee") dated November 17, 1995 (the
"Note"), agreeing to repay all principal amounts advanced under the Note up to
ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000); and

          WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Note, the aggregate principal
amount to be advanced was never to exceed $1,000,000 at any time; and

          WHEREAS, the Maker and the Payee desire to have the maximum principal
amount that may be advanced pursuant to the Note increased to $3,000,000; and

          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein
contained, the Maker and Payee hereby agree to amend the Note as follows:

          1.   The stated principal amount of the Note is amended to read
$3,000,000.

          2.   Paragraph one of the Note shall be amended to read in its
entirety as follows:

          "FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, COELHO ASSOCIATES LLC (the
     "Maker"), hereby promises to pay to the order of CROP GROWERS CORPORATION
     (the "Payee", which term includes any subsequent holder hereof) at Great
     Falls, Montana or at such other place as the Payee may from time to time
     hereafter designate to the Maker in writing the principal sum of Three
     MILLION DOLLARS ($3,000,000) or, if less, the unpaid principal of all
     amounts advanced hereunder by the Payee to the Maker."

          3.   The first sentence in paragraph two of the Note is hereby amended
to read in its entirety as follows:

          "Until the final maturity of this Note, the Maker may from time to
     time request an advance (an "Advance") hereunder and repay and, upon
     repayment, reborrow, provided that the aggregate unpaid principal amount of
     all Advances hereunder shall never exceed $3,000,000 at any time."

          All remaining terms and conditions of the Note not amended hereby
shall remain in effect and are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
herein.

          DATED as of May 30, 1996.


                              COELHO ASSOCIATES LLC



                              _________________________
                              Name:
                              Title:
#### Camille LANDRY, Individually, and on behalf of her Minor Child, Tai Landry v. PSA OF LAFAYETTE, LLC.

No. 2011-CD-0130.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 18, 2011.

In re Pediatric Services of America, Inc.; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2004-5188.

Stay denied. Writ denied.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of CV Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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.



|                     |  |                         
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------
|Dated August 7, 2007 |  | /s/ DANIEL K. SPIEGELMAN
|                     |  | Daniel K. Spiegelman    
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Mindesta, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K

A-1

 for the period ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the Company.



3. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:

June 8,

 2015



By: /s/ Lucie Letellier

Lucie Letellier

Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7162

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JEANNIE LARGENT COSBY, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:07-cr-00033-MR-3) 

Submitted: September 4, 2013 Decided: September 11, 2013

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Jeannie Largent Cosby, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, 

Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Corey F. 

Ellis, Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeannie Largent Cosby appeals the district court’s 

orders denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motions for 

reduction of sentence and denying her subsequent motion for 

reconsideration. We affirm.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s 

decision on whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) and 

review de novo a court’s conclusion on the scope of its legal 

authority under that provision. United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 

183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court 

may modify a defendant’s term of imprisonment when the defendant 

is “sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing 

range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing 

Commission.” This provision, however, provides Cosby no relief 

because her sentence was based on a statutory minimum sentence

and not on a Guidelines range that was subsequently lowered by 

the Sentencing Commission. See United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 

226, 235 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[I]n reducing a sentence under 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(e) and [U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual] 

§ 5K1.1, the sentencing court does not apply a Guidelines 

sentencing range.”); see also United States v. Johnson, 564 F.3d 

419, 423 (6th Cir. 2009) (stating that the starting point for a 

downward departure under § 3553(e) is the statutory minimum 
3

sentence). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order 

denying Cosby’s § 3582(c)(2) motions.

We further conclude that the district court lacked the 

authority to revisit its order denying § 3582(c)(2) relief to 

Cosby. United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235–36 (4th Cir. 

2010). Accordingly, we also affirm the district court’s order 

denying Cosby’s motion for reconsideration.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                        5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE INTERIM
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AQUIS COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC.
AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT ON
FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                     1,000
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                2,650
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         3,637
<ALLOWANCES>                                           (625)
<INVENTORY>                                           1,775
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      8,529
<PP&E>                                               18,481
<DEPRECIATION>                                        5,447
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       42,922
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 8,573
<BONDS>                                              24,650
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   152
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                            9,656
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         42,922
<SALES>                                                 128
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      6,422
<CGS>                                                   258
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         6,835
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      929
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (1,342)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (1,342)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (1,342)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.15)
        

</TABLE>
## Exhibit 23.1

## 

## 

## 

## ****

## ****

## ****

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-78285, 333-85559 and 333-87272) and in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-78285), ofNSTAR of our report dated January 20, 2004 relating to the financial statements and the financial statement schedule which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

January 20, 2004
584 A.2d 215

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CHARLES PURNELL.

May 15, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Opinion issued June 4, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00397-CV

———————————

LINTON WINFIELD, Appellant

V.

ROSEMONT CLEAR CREEK, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1196718

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Linton Winfield, has neither established indigence nor paid, or 

made arrangements to pay, the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 37.3(b). On July 25, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified Winfield that this appeal 

was subject to dismissal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b). On August 7, 2023, 
2

Winfield filed a response asserting that he is indigent and his “indigency was already 

proven in the lower courts.” Contrary to Winfield’s assertion, appellee filed a 

response demonstrating that the trial court signed an order on May 30, 2023 (1) 

granting appellee’s contest to Winfield’s Statement of Inability to Afford Payment 

of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond, (2) finding that Winfield’s statement “was 

materially false when made and Linton Winfield failed to prove the inability to 

afford fees,” and (3) ordering Winfield to pay costs associated with the case. 

Winfield did not file a reply. We agree with appellee’s response that Winfield has 

failed to demonstrate indigency. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We dismiss any 

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Targeted Genetics
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David J. Poston, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Date: November 3, 2005                       /s/ David J. Poston
                                             ----------------------------------
                                              David J. Poston
                                              Acting Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Egerald EVERY.

No. 2010-KO-0929.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re Every, Egerald; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 477-091; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-KA-0721.

Denied.
585 A.2d 363

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. FRED PARAMORE.

September 4, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | Corporate Trust Services

MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for WFRBS COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST 2014-C20 COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2014-C20

 

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2014 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

February 25, 2016

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President 

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Bureau of Labor Statistics

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Department of Labor published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of October 4, 2010, concerning a request for comments on the proposed revision of the National Compensation Survey (1220-0164). The document contained an incorrect date for submission of comments.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Nora Kincaid, BLS Clearance Officer, at 202-691-7628 (this is not a toll free number). (                        *See***ADDRESSES**                         section.)                    

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of October 4, 2010, 75 FR 61178, in the second column, correct the                         **DATES**                         caption to read:                    

# DATES:

                        Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the                         **ADDRESSES**                         section of this notice on or before December 3, 2010.                    

Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of October 2010.

Kimberley Hill,

Chief, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

[FR Doc. 2010-25404 Filed 10-7-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-24-P
585 A.2d 377

#### WILLIAM J. RODGERS v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CO.

September 18, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                Certification of the Principal Executive Officer
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection  with the annual report of A.B.  Watley Group Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  Steven Malin,  the
Chairman of the Company,  hereby  certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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.



                                               /s/  STEVEN MALIN
                                               ------------------------
                                               Steven Malin
                                               Principal Executive Officer
                                               Date:  March 3, 2003


                                      F-26


<PAGE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7987

ROBERT LEE BROCK, a/k/a Two Souls Walker,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(MISC-95-45-N)

Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 12, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Brock, Appellant Pro Se.

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

attempt to file a complaint. 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. Brock v. Department of Corrections, No. MISC-95-45-N (E.D. Va. Nov. 14, 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