alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Leigh","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/leigh\/","title":"small_iss001328015","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"0Z86oQT4ki\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/small_iss001328015\/\">small_iss001328015<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/small_iss001328015\/embed\/#?secret=0Z86oQT4ki\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“small_iss001328015” — NASA\" data-secret=\"0Z86oQT4ki\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/small_iss001328015.jpg?w=480","thumbnail_width":480,"thumbnail_height":320}
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 

 On April 28, 2016, Plaintiff Scott Warren Boe filed a Motion for Leave to File 

Supplemental Pleading (Doc. 38), in which he requests permission to file a lodged second 

amended complaint. On July 6, 2016, the Honorable Deborah M. Fine, United States 

Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 45), 

recommending that the Court deny the motion. Judge Fine advised Plaintiff that he had 

fourteen (14) days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections 

could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See also 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

 No timely objection has been filed, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 

review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 

(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 

not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

Scott Warren Boe, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-15-02479-PHX-SPL (DMF)

ORDER 

Case 2:15-cv-02479-SPL-DMF Document 52 Filed 07/27/16 Page 1 of 2
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is welltaken. The Court will adopt the R&R and deny the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

(stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The 

district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 45) 

is accepted and adopted by the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Motion for Leave to File Supplemental 

Pleading (Doc. 38) is denied. 

 Dated this 26th day of July, 2016.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:15-cv-02479-SPL-DMF Document 52 Filed 07/27/16 Page 2 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

 

 Having reviewed the Defendant’s Motion to Terminate Probation (Doc. 25), there 

being no objection by the Government or Probation Officer, and finding good cause 

appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 25). Defendant 

is hereby terminated from his period of probation. 

 The Court finds excludable delay under Title 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) from 

to . 

 Dated this 13th day of September, 2017. 

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

United States of America, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

William Ralph Schwoerer, 

Defendant. 

 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CR-15-01436-01-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

 

Case 2:15-cr-01436-SPL Document 26 Filed 09/13/17 Page 1 of 1
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 Imagin Molecular Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), Corey N. Conn, as Chief Financial Officer hereby certifies, 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), as
applicable 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:
      November 10, 2008
                  /s/ Corey N. ConnCorey
      N. ConnChief
      Financial Officer
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Imagin Molecular Corporation and will be retained by Imagin Molecular
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
#### Thomas H. Flournoy *v.*George A. Allen et al.

Husband and Wife — Deed of Separation — Joint Estate.

Upon separation by husband and wife, he made a deed of trust to his wife, reciting a consideration and “grants to the said J. B. Husbands as trustee aforesaid and in trust for said second party, and. her heirs by said party of the first part, etc.’ Held that the wife would be the sole beneficiary, but took by the deed a joint estate with her children, the word “heirs” being used for “children.”

APPEAL FROM M'CRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 1, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

William Hurst, and Elizabeth, now Mrs. Head, having been married, and having children of that marriage, separated, and prior to October 28, 1855, were divorced, and on that day a deed between William Hurst, of the 'first part, Elizabeth Hurst, of the second part, and J. B. Husbands, trustee of the third part, was made. Which recites that the said party of the first part, for an in consideration of the sum of fifteen hundred dollars to him in hand paid, the receipt of which he acknowledged, grants to the said J. B. Husbands as trustee aforesaid, and in trust for said party of the second part, and *her heirs*by said party of the *424first part, two lots in the town of Paducah, which are particularly described, and Mrs. Read, late Mrs. Hurst, and her husband, with her trustee having conveyed one of said lots and a remote vendee calling in question the sufficiency of the title, it becomes necessary to decide whether Mrs. Read is the sole beneficiary of said deed.

*Husbands, for appellant.*

*Bigger & Moss, for appellees.*

The trustee by the terms of the deed is to hold the property in trust for the party of the second part and *her heirs*by Hurst; if instead of the word *“heirs”*children by said party of the first part, had been used in the instrument, there could scarcely be a doubt that they would have taken, as purchasers a joint estate with their mother in the property conveyed. And if it were not used in that sense, why were the words “by party of *the first part”*added? Whereby the children of the two persons were as certainly identified as if they had been designated by name.

Taking the whole sentence together in which the grant is expressed, and it must be manifest that the word *“heirs”*was used for *children,*and that being the case, the children of the parties took by the deed a joint estate with their mother, constituting a joint tenancy.

And the judgment of the court below being in accordance with this conclusion, the same is *affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SCHEDULE AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001047174
<NAME> ORION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          34,487
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  274,143
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    267,403
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               634,682
<PP&E>                                         291,889
<DEPRECIATION>                                 873,472
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,799,557
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,713,235
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    135,328
<COMMON>                                         4,663
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,838,740
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,799,557
<SALES>                                        632,315
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               632,315
<CGS>                                          528,960
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,732,085
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             130,716
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,529,446)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,529,446)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,529,446)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.57)


</TABLE>
Ninth Amendment of Taylor Capital Group, Inc. 401(k) Plan



 
EXHIBIT
10.60 
 
NINTH AMENDMENT
 
OF  
TAYLOR CAPITAL GROUP, INC. 401(K) PLAN 
 
(Effective as of October 1, 1998) 
 
WHEREAS, Taylor Capital Group, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Taylor Capital Group, Inc. 401(k) Plan (Effective as of
October 1, 1998) (the “Plan”); and 
 
WHEREAS, amendment of the Plan is now considered desirable; 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the power reserved to the Company by subsection 15.1 of the Plan, and in exercise of the authority delegated to the Committee established pursuant to Section 16 of the plan
(the “Committee”) by subsection 15.1 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended in the following particulars: 
 
4. Effective October 1, 1998, by correcting the cross-reference in subsection 2.2 of the Plan from “subsection 3.4” to
“subsection 3.1.” 
 
5. Effective January
1, 1998, by substituting the phrase “Code Sections 125 or 132(f)(4)” for the phrase “Code Section 125” where the latter appears in subsection 7.1. 
 
6. Effective January 1, 1999, by substituting the following for subparagraph 7.7(b) of the Plan:

 

	 	“(b)	 	received compensation from an Employer or any Controlled Group Member in excess of $80,000 during the preceding year.” 








7. Effective January 1, 1999, by adding the following at the end of paragraph 11.4(a) of
the Plan: 
 
“A hardship distribution (as
described in Code Section 401(k)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) shall not be an eligible rollover distribution.” 
 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned duly authorized member of the Committee has caused the foregoing amendment to be executed this
18th day of December, 2002. 
 

	
	 /s/    MELVIN E.
PEARL        


	 On behalf of the Committee as Aforesaid
Cite as 2015 Ark. 138



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-14-1057 TERRY JOE POUNDER APPELLANT V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered April 2, 2015 PRO SE MOTION FOR COPY OF APPEAL RECORD [SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT,NOS. 66CR-04-997, 66CR-04-998, 66CR04-999, 66CR-04-1000, 66CR-04-1160] HONORABLE STEPHEN TABOR, JUDGE APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT.

PER CURIAM In 2005, appellant Terry Joe Pounder entered a plea of guilty in the Sebastian County Circuit Court, Fort Smith District, to four counts of aggravated robbery, first-degree criminal mischief, theft by receiving, and robbery. An aggregate sentence of 396 months’ imprisonment was imposed. On October 9, 2014, appellant filed a petition in the trial court seeking to proceed in forma pauperis with a “motion for belated appeal, habeas corpus.” The trial court denied the petition, and appellant timely lodged an appeal from that order. Now before us is appellant’s pro se motion for copy of appeal record. We dismiss the appeal, and the motion is moot inasmuch as it is clear from the record that appellant could not prevail on appeal. An appeal of the denial of postconviction relief will not be permitted to go forward when it is clear from the record that the appeal is without merit. Hinkston v. State, 2014 Ark. 504 (per curiam); Chambliss v. State , 2014 Ark. 188 (per curiam).Cite as 2015 Ark. 138

The petition to proceed in forma pauperis provides no articulated basis for proceeding with a motion for belated appeal of the denial of habeas relief. The petition includes only the statement that appellant desires to file a “motion for belated appeal, habeas corpus.” Even though the petition to proceed in forma pauperis refers to “habeas,” there is nothing in the petition to indicate the nature of a habeas petition or the grounds on which petitioner intends to rely to support his petition to proceed as an indigent. Under such circumstances, we cannot find any ground to reverse the trial court’s order. Appeal dismissed; motion moot.

2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"John J. Uri","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/juri\/","title":"50 Years Ago: Apollo 10 to Sort Out the Unknowns","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"fHgdyRejbv\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/50-years-ago-apollo-10-to-sort-out-the-unknowns\/\">50 Years Ago: Apollo 10 to Sort Out the Unknowns<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/50-years-ago-apollo-10-to-sort-out-the-unknowns\/embed\/#?secret=fHgdyRejbv\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“50 Years Ago: Apollo 10 to Sort Out the Unknowns” — NASA\" data-secret=\"fHgdyRejbv\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/S68-42906\/S68-42906~large.jpg?w=600&h=1920&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1920}
**IMAGIN
MOLECULAR CORPORATION**
 **(Formerly
Known As)**
 **Cipher
Holding Corporation**
 
 EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 In
connection with the quarterly report of Imagin Molecular Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Corey Conn, Chief
Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge: (1) the quarterly report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2)
the information contained in the quarterly report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 
 Date:
August 22, 2005
 
 /s/Neil
Sy
 Chief
Financial Officer, Chairman, President
 
 
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act 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.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 207 (Monday, October 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 63916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25543]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL14-80-000]


Calpine Construction Finance Company, L.P. v. Tampa Electric 
Company; Notice of Effective Date of Withdrawal of Complaint

    1. On September 15, 2014, Calpine Construction Finance Company, 
L.P. (Calpine Construction) filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Complaint 
in the above-referenced docket.
    2. On September 24, 2014, Tampa Electric Company, filed comments 
stating it does not oppose Calpine Construction's withdrawal of its 
complaint.
    3. Pursuant to Rule 216 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure,\1\ the withdrawal of a pleading is effective at the end of 
15 days from the date the withdrawal pleading was filed, if no motion 
in opposition is filed and the Commission takes no action to disallow 
the withdrawal within the 15-day period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.216(b) (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. No motion opposing the withdrawal was filed and the Commission 
has taken no action to disallow the withdrawal. Accordingly, the 
effective date of the withdrawal is September 30, 2014. This proceeding 
is thereby terminated.

    Dated: October 21, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-25543 Filed 10-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
No. 14,432.

#### The Board of Commissioners of Madison County *v.*Wood.

Filed Sept. 25, 1890.

From the Delaware Circuit Court.

*T. B. Orr*and *B. M. McMahan,*for appellant.

*C. E. Shipley, W. R. Pierse, C. B. Gerard*and *D. W. Wood,*for appellee.

Elliott, J.

— The judgment in this case is affirmed, upon the authority of *Wood*v. *Board, etc.,*125 Ind. 270.
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



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  filing of the  Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the  Quarter  Ended  March 31,  2004 (the  "Report")  by
Tag-It Pacific,  Inc.  ("Registrant"),  each of the undersigned hereby certifies
that:

1.       to the  best of our  knowledge,  the  Report  fully  complies  with the
         requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
         of 1934; and

2.       to the best of our knowledge,  the information  contained in the Report
         fairly presents, in all material respects,  the financial condition and
         results of operations of Registrant.



Dated:  May 17, 2004             /S/ COLIN DYNE
                                 -----------------------------------
                                 Colin Dyne
                                 Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  May 17, 2004             /S/ RONDA FERGUSON
                                 -----------------------------------
                                 Ronda Ferguson
                                 Chief Financial Officer
Case 2:15-cr-01482-DGC Document 4 Filed 10/20/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01482-DGC Document 4 Filed 10/20/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01482-DGC Document 4 Filed 10/20/15 Page 3 of 3
577 A.2d 164

#### IN THE MATTER OF AUGUST C. MICHAELIS, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

August 3, 1990.

.ORDER

The Office of Attorney Ethics having advised this Court that AUGUST C. MICHAELIS of PASSAIC, who was admitted to *507the Bar of this State in 1940, has pleaded guilty to obstructing the inquiry of a Congressional subcommittee, in violation of 18 *U.S.C.A.*§ 1505, and conspiring to evade federal taxes, in violation of 18 *U.S.C.A.*§ 371; and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that pursuant to *R.*l:20-6(b)(l), AUGUST C. MICHAELIS is temporarily suspended from the practice of law pending the final resolution of ethics proceedings against him, effective immediately and until the further order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that AUGUST C. MICHAELIS be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension; and it is further

ORDERED that AUGUST C. MICHAELIS comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with suspended attorneys.
#### RICHARD BETTS v. BOARD OF REVIEW, ET AL.

April 19, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.