alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SCAD-20-0000767 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner,

vs. DANIEL JOSEPH O’PHELAN, (Bar No. 7843),

Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC #18-0245, #20-0183) ORDER OF TRANSFER TO INACTIVE STATUS ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C . J . , N a k a y a m a , M c K e n n a , W i l s o n , a n d E d d i n s , J J . )

Upon review of the December 22, 2020 petition filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) on behalf of, and with the approval of, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai # i, requesting this court to immediately transfer Respondent Daniel J. O’Phelan to inactive status, pursuant to Rules 2.19 (b) and 2.19(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai # i (RSCH), we conclude temporary transfer to inactive status is warranted, pending the provision of further evidence in support of Respondent O’Phelan’s assertions that he is currently incapable of practicing law or Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-20-0000767 24-DEC-2020 12:02 PM Dkt. 3 ORDdefending himself in a pending disciplinary matter. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Daniel J. O’Phelan is immediately transferred to inactive status in this jurisdiction, pursuant to RSCH Rules 2.19(b) and 2.19(c), effective with the filing of this order. Respondent O’Phelan shall remain on inactive status until further order of this
court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Daniel J. O’Phelan shall submit, within 60 days of the entry date of this order, further evidence in support of his assertions regarding his incapacity, including medical documentation, obtained at his
expense. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ODC shall in the interim suspend and hold in abeyance proceedings against Respondent O’Phelan to the extent required by RSCH Rule 2.19(h).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Disciplinary Board shall, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.19(d), cause a notice of this transfer to inactive status to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the judicial circuit in which Respondent O’Phelan maintained his practice.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the clerk of the court, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.19(e), shall transmit a certified copy of this order to all judges of the State of Hawai # i and shall

2request their assistance and such action as may be indicated,

pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.20, to protect the interests of both Respondent O’Phelan and his clients, if any.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, December 24, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Todd W. Eddins

3
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 67232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26702]


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

SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM


Forms Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for 
Extension of Clearance

AGENCY: Selective Service System.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The following forms have been submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for extension of clearance in compliance with the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35):

SSS Form 1

    Title: The Selective Service System Registration Form.
    Purpose: Is used to register men and establish a data base for use 
in identifying manpower to the military services during a national 
emergency.
    Respondents: All 18-year-old males who are United States citizens 
and those male immigrants residing in the United States at the time of 
their 18th birthday are required to register with the Selective Service 
System.
    Frequency: Registration with the Selective Service System is a one-
time occurrence.
    Burden: A burden of two minutes or less on the individual 
respondent.
    Copies of the above identified form can be obtained upon written 
request to the Selective Service System, Reports Clearance Officer, 
1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22209-2425.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed extension of 
clearance of the form should be sent within 60 days of the publication 
of this notice to the Selective Service System, Reports Clearance 
Officer, 1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22209-2425.
    A copy of the comments should be sent to the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer, Selective Service 
System, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, 
Room 3235, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: November 3, 2014.
Lawrence Romo,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2014-26702 Filed 11-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8015-01-P
Case: 1:20-cr-00585 Document #: 30 Filed: 10/07/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:72
A

A

A

A

A

A

A A A

A A A

A A A

A

Y W A

A A A

W

Y A A

A

A WA A

A Y A A
A Y

W w w

W

w

A

A Y Y

Y

w Y

A Y W

W w w

A w w

w

w A w

W

w
w w

WA Y

A W

WA Y

Y W

w w

WA Y

WA

WA w

WA A

A W

w

Y

w
w

w

w

w w

w w

w

w

w

w

A

WA A

A

w w

A Y A
w

A W

A

A Y

w A

w w w

w

w

w

W w

w w A

w

w w w

A

w

w

A

WA w

w w w
w

w

WA

A

Y w w

w w

w w w

w w

Y w

WA W w

WA Y

Y

A

A w w

WA W

w

w A w

w w
A w w w

w

A w w w w

w w

w

w

w

w w w

w

A

WA

w

w w

w w

WA Y

Y

A

W w

w

A w

w w
w A

WA Y A A

A A

w

w

WA Y

A Y w

A A

Y

A

A w

A

A A w

w w

A w

WA Y A w

w

W
w

WA Y w

Y

A A

WA

A

A Y

A

Y Y

A Y
#### Eugene LAUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary JOHNSON; Sammy Buentello, Assistant Director of Classification; Leticia McQueen; Alfred Janicek, Jr., Warden; Johnny Armstrong; Bill Cheatham; Cay Cannon; Pamela Franks; Gary Griffith; Stephen Rodgers; Vanessa Sinegaure; Kelly B. Strong; Joni M. White; John Wyeth, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-20486.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Dec. 29, 2004.

Eugene Laue, #255017, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division, Ferguson Unit, Midway, TX, Pro se.

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Eugene Laue, Texas prisoner # 255017, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his *36642 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Laue challenges his continued incarceration in administrative segregation despite his renunciation of his gang membership. This court reviews dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A *de novo. Velasquez v. Woods,*329 F.3d 420, 421 (5th Cir.2003). A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous “if it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact.” *Harris v. Hegmann,*198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir.1999).

Because Laue has alleged that his placement in administrative segregation was not based on his initial classification, review is under the familiar test of *Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). *See Wilkerson v. Stalder,*329 F.3d 431, 436 (5th Cir.2003), *cert. denied,*540 U.S. 966, 124 S.Ct. 432, 157 L.Ed.2d 310 (2003). We will assume *arguendo*that Laue’s eight years of confinement in administrative segregation constitutes an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” *Sandin,*515 U.S. at 484.

The ultimate question is whether a prisoner was afforded the process he was due under the Constitution. *See Sandin,*515 U.S. at 483-84. Laue’s pleadings do not specifically allege how the prison’s review procedures were insufficient. However, the grievances he submitted reflect that prison officials have investigated his renunciation of his gang membership, that officials have determined his renunciation to be valid, and that he is awaiting placement in a special program for former gang members. We conclude that Laue’s corn-plaint does not reflect that he has been denied due process.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *366published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

IN RE TIKTOK, INC., )

CONSUMER PRIVACY ) MDL No. 2948

LITIGATION )

) Master Docket No. 20 C 4699

)

This Document Relates to )

All Cases ) Judge John Z. Lee

)

) Magistrate Judge Sunil R. Harjani

)

AGENDA FOR FAIRNESS HEARING ON MAY 18, 2022

The Court sets the following schedule for the Fairness Hearing, which is 

scheduled for May 18, 2022, at 1:00 pm.

I. Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

A. Class Counsel’s Presentation of Motion (15 Minutes)

B. Objectors1

a. Steven Helfand (10 Minutes)

b. Mark S. (10 Minutes)

c. Dennis Litteken (10 Minutes)

d. Christina Travis (10 Minutes)

C. Class Counsel’s Response to Objections (15 Minutes)

D. TikTok’s Response to Objections (15 Minutes).

II. Class Counsel’s Motion for Attorney Fees, Expenses, and Service 

Awards

A. Class Counsel’s Presentation of Motion (15 Minutes)

1 Jennifer Cochran filed an objection, but did not file a timely notice of intent to appear 

at the fairness hearing as required by the Court’s order granting preliminary approval of the 

settlement. See Order Granting Prelim. Approval, ECF No. 162 § 6.

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 234 Filed: 05/13/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:11970
2

B. Objections

i. Glancy Prongay (10 Minutes)

ii. Steven Helfand (10 Minutes)

iii. Mark S. (10 Minutes)

iv. Dennis Litteken (10 Minutes)

C. Class Counsel’s Response to Objections (20 Minutes)

III. Other Petitions for Attorneys’ Fees and Service Awards

A. Dennis Litteken’s Petition for Service Award (5 Minutes)

B. Mark S.’s Petition for Service Award (5 Minutes)

C. Class Counsel’s Response to Petitions (10 Minutes)

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 234 Filed: 05/13/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:11971
**Exhibit 32**

 

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 Internet Acquisition Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (“Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

/s/ Matt Lettau                             									

Matt Lettau

Chief Executive Officer

Principal Accounting Officer

April 2, 2007
{
 "title":"Charge the TS",
 "run": 1,
 "comments":"Charge the ice tank from 36 % using chiller 2.",
 "year": 2017,
 "month": 10,
 "day": 25,
 "start_time": "10:50:05.000"
}
Case: 1:20-cr-00585 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/03/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:84
Case: 1:20-cr-00585 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/03/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:85
Case: 1:20-cr-00585 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/03/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:86
Case: 1:20-cr-00585 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/03/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:87
#### City of Columbus, Appellee, *v.*Charlton, Appellant.

(No. 4246

Decided January 31, 1949.)

*402
      *Mr. Richard W. Gordon,*city attorney, and *Mr. Walter W. Grelle, Jr.,*for appellee.

*Mr. Roscoe R. Walcutt,.*for appellant.

By the Court.

This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Franklin county, affirming a judgment of conviction, rendered by the Municipal Court of Columbus.

The defendant was charged with the reckless operation of a motor vehicle. The evidence on the material issues was in conflict. The case was a proper one for submission to the jury. The jury resolved the issues against the defendant. There was substantial evidence presented to support the verdict.

The charge as given was correct and not misleading. No specific request was made to charge further on what is a lawful use of the highway. If the charge as given did not properly cover the subject it was the duty of the defendant to bring such matter to the attention of the court, otherwise error does not lie.

We have carefully read the record and examined briefs of counsel. We cannot say that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the refusal of the court to direct a verdict for defendant was not error.

As we find no error in the record prejudicial to defendant, the judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Wiseman, P. J., Miller and Hornbeck, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3905 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3905

 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
the operation of the Medicare comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program 
                            in Connecticut.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 4, 2004

Mr. Larson of Connecticut (for himself and Ms. DeLauro) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
  Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
the operation of the Medicare comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program 
                            in Connecticut.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OF MEDICARE COMPARATIVE COST 
              ADJUSTMENT (CCA) PROGRAM IN CONNECTICUT.

    Section 1860C-1(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
29(b)(2)), as added by section 241(a) of the Medicare Prescription 
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173), 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) No part in connecticut.--No part of the MSA 
                is in Connecticut.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### FARMAH v. FARMAH

No. 280PA97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 210

Petition by defendants for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 23 July 1997.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 393 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 393

               For the relief of Alejandra Arias Garcia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2003

  Mr. Pastor introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
               For the relief of Alejandra Arias Garcia.

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

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF, OR DENIAL OF ADMISSION TO, 
              ALEJANDRA ARIAS GARCIA.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 212(a) and 237(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, Alejandra Arias Garcia may not be 
removed from the United States, denied admission to the United States, 
or considered ineligible for lawful permanent residence in the United 
States, by reason of any ground for removal or denial of admission that 
is reflected in the records of the Department of Homeland Security, the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice, or 
the Visa Office of the Department of State, on the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (b) Rescission of Outstanding Order of Removal.--The Secretary of 
Homeland Security, or the Attorney General, as appropriate, shall 
rescind any outstanding order of removal or deportation, or any finding 
of deportability, that has been entered against Alejandra Arias Garcia 
by reason of any ground described in subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 389 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.389

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the seventh day of January, two thousand and three

                                 An Act

 
To authorize the use of certain grant funds to establish an information 
  clearinghouse that provides information to increase public access to 
                       defibrillation in schools.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Automatic Defibrillation in Adam's 
Memory Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.

    Subsection (c) of section 312 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
U.S.C. 244), as amended by Public Law 107-188, is amended--
        (1) at the end of paragraph (5), by striking ``and'';
        (2) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and
        (3) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
        ``(6) establish an information clearinghouse that provides 
    information to increase public access to defibrillation in schools; 
    and''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Sheri Bernstein

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00821

- CV

Trial court case number: 2014

- 30979

Trial court: 311th District Court of Harris County

The Court req uests a response to Relator’s motion for emergency relief filed October 8,

2014. The response, if any, is due October 13, 2014.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

X A cting individually

Date: October 8, 2014
**EXHIBIT
      35.1**






**ANNUAL
      MASTER SERVICER’S CERTIFICATE**




**GE
      DEALER FLOORPLAN MASTER NOTE TRUST**




March
      26,
      2008




The
      undersigned, a duly authorized officer of General Electric Capital Corporation
      (“ GECC ”),
      as
      the master servicer (the “ Master
      Servicer ”),
      pursuant to the Amended and Restated Servicing Agreement dated as of June 30,
      2006 (as may be further amended and supplemented from time to time, the
“ Agreement ”),
      between GECC and GE Dealer Floorplan Master Note Trust (“ Trust ”),
      does
      hereby certify that:




1.  GECC
      is,
      as of the date hereof, Master Servicer under the Agreement.





2.  The
      undersigned is an authorized officer who is duly authorized pursuant to the
      Agreement to execute and deliver this certificate to the Trust.





3.  A
      review
      of the activities of Master Servicer during the fiscal year ended December
      31,
      2007 (the “reporting period”), and of its performance under the Agreement, has
      been made under my supervision.





4.  To
      the
      best of my knowledge, based on such review, Master Servicer has fulfilled all
      of
      its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects its obligations
      under the Agreement throughout the reporting period.







IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate the date
      first above written.




/s/
              Margaret S. FritzName:
                Margaret S. Fritz
              Title:Vice
                President of General Electric Capital
              Corporation
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.4



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
   

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent Public
Accountants" and to the use of our report dated April 17, 1997, with respect to
the financial statements of Bonray Drilling Corporation included in the
Pre-Effective Amendment No. 2 to the Registration Statement on Form S-1 (to be
filed on or about March 25, 1998) and related Prospectus of Bayard Drilling
Technologies, Inc. for the registration of 2,955,000 shares of its common stock.

                                                                                
                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
March 25, 1998
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

 

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS**

 

**Inconnection with this quarterly report of ML Futures Investments L.P. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), Robert M. Alderman,Chief Executive Officer, President and Manager of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:**

 

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: May 15, 2006                              |
|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                            |
| By                                              | /s/ ROBERT M. ALDERMAN |   |
| Robert M. Alderman                              |
| Chief Executive  Officer, President and Manager |
| (Principal Executive  Officer)                  |

 

1

----
#### PHILLIPS v. SANDERS

No. 177P97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 615

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 June 1997.
EXHIBIT 32.1NOVELLUS SYSTEMS, INC.CERTIFICATIONIn connection with the periodic report of Novellus Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”), I, Richard S. Hill, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge: (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, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for theperiods indicated.This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and ExchangeCommission.       Dated: May 9, 2007 By: /s/ Richard S. Hill Richard S. Hill      Chairman of the Board of Directorsand Chief Executive Officer      (Principal Executive Officer)