alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
664 A.2d 940

#### IN THE MATTER OF MARIE CHEN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

October 6, 1995.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed its decision with the Court on August 16, 1995, recommending that MARIE CHEN of BOUND BROOK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1986, be reprimanded for violating *RPC*1.1(a) (gross neglect), *RPC*1.4 (failure to communicate), *RPC*5.5(a) (lack of a *bona fide*office) and *RPC*8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with the ethics authorities),

And the Disciplinary Review Board further recommending that respondent submit to the Board proof that she is currently in compliance with the *bona fide*office requirement and that she practice under the supervision of a proctor for a period of six months;

*480And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MARIE CHEN is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that within twenty days of the filing date of this Order respondent submit to the Disciplinary Review Board proof that she maintains a *bona fide*New Jersey office; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent practice under the supervision of a practicing attorney approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics for a period of six months and until further Order of the Court; 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; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6703
WILLIAM EARL MARSHALL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-146-5-BO) Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 28, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Earl Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: William Earl Marshall appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) petition. 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. See Marshall v. United States , No. CA-00-146-5-BO (E.D.N.C.Apr. 20, 2000). We deny Marshall’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 92 (Thursday, May 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 22779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11393]



[[Page 22779]]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


In the Matter of: Fortel, Inc., Now Known as Envit Capital Group, 
Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

May 12, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Fortel, Inc., now known as Envit Capital Group, Inc., because it has 
not filed any periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2002.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the 
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on 
May 12, 2009, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on May 26, 2009.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11393 Filed 5-12-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
Dated:          March 28, 2008          By: /s/          Bruce Kaiserman                                                                    Title:Vice PresidentCredit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.I, Bruce Kaiserman, certify that:1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp. Home Equity Asset Trust 2007-2 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.  Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.  Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.Bruce Kaiserman**Exhibit 31 : Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications**(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)Name:In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:LaSalle Bank National Association, as CustodianSelect Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Servicer and Special Collections ServicerU.S. Bank National Association, as TrusteeWells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian
#### The Najjar Group, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Derivatively on Behalf of BDC 56, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, Appellant, v West 56th Hotel LLC, Doing Business as Chambers Hotel, et al., Respondents.

[974 NYS2d 581]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered on or about June 25, 2012, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff seeks to vindicate its personal rights under article VII of the operating agreement of BDC 56, LLC, which specified that if any surplus revenue remained, those funds would be available for distribution pro rata to the members, including plaintiff, in accordance with their equity interests in the limited liability company. Plaintiff is therefore unable to bring a derivative action because *the*interests at issue are personal to it, not corporate (belonging to BDC 56) *(see Yudell v Gilbert,*99 AD3d 108, 114 [1st Dept 2012]).

Plaintiff also failed to allege that a pre-suit demand would have been futile. A shareholder may not institute a derivative *639action unless the complaint “set[s] forth with particularity,” the shareholder’s efforts to secure the initiation of that action by the board of directors, or sets forth sufficient and particular reasons for not making such efforts *(see*Business Corporation Law § 626 [c]). A pre-suit demand is similarly required in a derivative action involving a limited liability company *(see Segal v Cooper,*49 AD3d 467, 468 [1st Dept 2008]). Although plaintiff alleged that individual defendant Born controlled certain entities that owned and operated another hotel to which BDC 56 funds were allegedly diverted, and through these entities engaged in the alleged misconduct at issue, plaintiff failed to specify how the other individual defendants were involved. Thus, plaintiff failed to allege that the majority of the individuals controlling the managing member, defendant West 56th Hotel LLC, were interested in the challenged transaction.

We further observe that in addition to lacking standing to bring this derivative action, plaintiffs claims, including, inter alia, for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and conversion, have been insufficiently pled. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, Feinman and Gische, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31.1

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(D)/15D-14(D)
                    UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Anthony N. Renzi, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  report  on Form  10-K and all  reports  on Form  10-D
   required to be filed in respect of the period  covered by this report on Form
   10-K of RALI Series 2007-QA3 Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2. Based on my knowledge,  the Exchange Act periodic reports,  taken as a whole,
   do not contain  any untrue  statement  of a material  fact or omit to state a
   material  fact  necessary  to make  the  statements  made,  in  light  of the
   circumstances  under which such  statements  were made, not  misleading  with
   respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based  on  my  knowledge,  all  of  the  distribution,  servicing  and  other
   information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
   this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities  performed by the servicers and
   based on my knowledge and the compliance  reviews  conducted in preparing the
   servicer  compliance  statements  required in this report  under Item 1123 of
   Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic  reports,
   the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements
   in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance  with  servicing  criteria for
   asset-backed  securities and their related  attestation reports on assessment
   of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to
   be included in this report in accordance  with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
   Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
   report,  except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
   of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report
   on Form 10-K.

In giving the  certifications  above,  I have  reasonably  relied on information
provided  to me by the  following  unaffiliated  parties:  Deutsche  Bank  Trust
Company Americas.

Date:  March 24, 2008


By:   /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
Name:   Anthony N. Renzi
Title:  Managing Director
(senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 89 (Monday, May 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 21830]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10922]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,730]


Bridgestone APM Plant 1, Carey, OH; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on April 1, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed by three workers on behalf of the workers at Bridgestone APM 
Plant 1, Carey, Ohio.
    The petitioners requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of April 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-10922 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an

order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th

Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 3, 2006

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JERRY LEWIS DEDRICK,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 06-6010

(D.C. No. 05-CV-1195-R) 

(Western District of Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, Chief Judge, KELLY and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R.

34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
2

The petitioner appeals the dismissal by the United States District

Court for the Western District of Oklahoma of his petition for writ of

habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We affirm. 

In the petition filed in the district court, the petitioner challenged his

conviction for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute 50

grams or more of cocaine base and the resulting sentence entered by the

United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. He alleged

that he was deprived of his due process rights because he did not receive

notice of a possible sentence enhancement for being a career criminal, that

his sentence was enhanced without required findings by a jury, that he was

sentenced under unconstitutional sentencing guidelines, and that his guilty

plea was involuntary. The district court dismissed.

Normally, “‘[a] petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 attacks the execution

of a sentence rather than its validity and must be filed in the district where

the prisoner is confined. A 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition attacks the legality of

detention, and must be filed in the district that imposed the sentence.’” 

Haugh v. Booker, 210 F.3d 1147, 1149 (10th Cir.2000) (quoting Bradshaw

v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir.1996)). Section 2241 “is not an

additional, alternative, or supplemental remedy to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.”

Bradshaw, 86 F.3d at 166. Only if the petitioner shows that § 2255 is
3

“inadequate or ineffective” to challenge the validity of a judgment or

sentence may a prisoner petition for such a remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Id. “Failure to obtain relief under § 2255 does not establish that the remedy

so provided is either inadequate or ineffective.” Id. (quotation omitted). 

The petitioner has not established the inadequacy or ineffectiveness

of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

Accordingly the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The

mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court

PER CURIAM
#### David Wadler, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 26, 2009;

decided March 31, 2009

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that dismissed the appeal from Supreme Court’s order denying appellant’s motion for reargument, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise granted.

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

 

FORM 10-K

 

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

 

For the Year Ended September 30, 2009

File Number: 000-51230

 

 

**ACQUIRED SALES CORP.**

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

  

| Nevada                                    |   | 87-0479286                           |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
| (State of jurisdiction of Incorporation)  |   | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
|                                      |   |                                 |
| 31 N. Suffolk Lane, Lake Forest, Illinois |   | 60045                                |
| (Address of principal executive offices)  |   | (Zip Code)                           |

 

 (847) 404-1964

(Registrants telephone number, including area code)

 

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well known seasoned issuer, as defined by Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes   No [x]  

 

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes   No [x]  

 

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes  [x]  No  

 

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Item 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes   No [x]  

 

----
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 442 

To provide for the Secretary of Homeland Security to be included in the 

line of Presidential succession. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2005 

Mr. DEWINE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

A BILL 

To provide for the Secretary of Homeland Security to be 

included in the line of Presidential succession. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY IN PRES4 IDENTIAL LINE OF SUCCESSION. 

5 Section 19(d)(1) of title 3, United States Code, is 

6 amended by inserting ‘‘Secretary of Homeland Security,’’ 

7 after ‘‘Attorney General,’’. 

Æ
EX-35.1
(logo) Bank of America

Bank of America
475 CrossPoint Parkway
PO Box 9000
Getzville, NY 14068-9000


Annual Statement as to Compliance

Banc of America Alternative Loan Trust 2007-1,
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-1

I, H. Randall Chestnut, a Senior Vice President of Bank of America, National
Association (the "Servicer"), hereby certify with respect to the Banc of America
Alternative Loan Trust 2007-1 formed pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement, dated March 29, 2007 (the "Pooling Agreement"), among Banc of America
Mortgage Securities, Inc., as Depositor, Bank of America, National Association,
as Servicer, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee, that: (a) a review of the
Servicer's activities during calendar year 2007 and of the Servicer's
performance under the Pooling Agreement has been made under my supervision; and
(b) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling Agreement in all material
respects throughout calendar year 2007.


March 1, 2008

By: /s/ H. Randall Chestnut
Name: H. Randall Chestnut
Title: Senior Vice President
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TIMMY WAYNE SPEIGHT

No. 491PA04-2

*(Filed 15*December 2006)

On order of the United States Supreme Court entered 30 June 2006 granting the State’s petition for writ of certiorari to review our decision reported in 359 N.C. 602, 614 S.E.2d 262 (2005), vacating said judgment and remanding the case to this Court for further consideration in light of *Washington v. Recuenco,*548 U.S.-, 126 S. Ct. 2546 (2006). Heard on remand in the Supreme Court 17 October 2006.

*Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State-appellant.*

*Staples S. Hughes, Appellate Defender, by Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellee.*

PER CURIAM.

Upon reconsideration of this case in light of *Washington v. Recuenco,*548 U.S.-, 126 S. Ct. 2546 (2006), we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it held defendant’s sentence was imposed in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 166 N.C. App. 106, 177-78, 602 S.E.2d 4, 12 (2004), and remand to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision in *State v. Timothy Earl Blackwell,*361 N.C. 41, - S.E.2d - (2006) (No. 490PA04-2). However, the portion of the Court of Appeals opinion finding no prejudicial error in defendant’s convictions as specified in that opinion remains undisturbed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
| Name of Subsidiary             |   | State of Organization |
|--------------------------------|--------|-----------------------|
| BKEP Finance Corporation       |   | Delaware              |
| BKEP Operating, L.L.C.         |   | Delaware              |
| BKEP Management, Inc.          |   | Delaware              |
| BKEP Crude, L.L.C.             |   | Delaware              |
| BKEP Sub, L.L.C.               |   | Delaware              |
| BKEP Pipeline, L.L.C.          |   | Delaware              |
| BKEP Pipeline, L.P.            |   | Texas                 |
| BKEP Field Services, L.L.C.    |   | Delaware              |
| BKEP Field Services II, L.L.C. |   | Texas                 |
| BKEP Materials, L.L.C.         |   | Texas                 |
| BKEP Asphalt, L.L.C.           |   | Texas                 |