alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S05Y2092.

#### IN THE MATTER OF WALLACE ANTHONY KITCHEN.

(621 SE2d 410)

Decided October 24, 2005.

Per curiam.

It is a violation of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct and grounds for disbarment for a lawyer to be convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude where the underlying conduct relates to the lawyer’s fitness to practice law. See Rule 8.4 (a) (2) and (3) of Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The definition of a conviction specifically includes a guilty plea and the fact that the defendant is punished in accordance with the First Offender Act is immaterial for purposes of the disciplinary rules. See Bar Rule 8.4 (b) and Bar Rule 4-106 (a).

On March 25, 2005, Wallace Anthony Kitchen, who has been a member of the Bar since .1981, pled guilty in the Superior Court of Muscogee County to misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol (Count 1) and felony habitual violator (Count 2). Kitchen was sentenced to 12 months probation on Count 1 and five years probation under the First Offender Act on Count 2. The record contains no evidence of Kitchen’s asserting any appellate or post-conviction challenge to either of these convictions. Clearly, therefore, by his conviction on Count 2, Kitchen has violated Rule 8.4 (a) (2) of Bar Rule 4-102 (d). S*ee In the Matter of Witt,*266 Ga. 526 (468 SE2d 356) (1996).

Like the special master, we find in mitigation of punishment that Kitchen is attempting to address his addiction to alcohol. In aggravation of punishment, however, we note that Kitchen not only has two prior disciplinary matters involving four separate client grievances, but also that he has another disciplinary matter currently pending before this Court; that Kitchen’s actions display a pattern of misconduct; that Kitchen appears unwilling or unable to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct or to appreciate the serious threat that his conduct poses to himself, his clients, the public and the legal profession; and the presence of multiple offenses in this case. Thus, after consideration of the record in this case, including Kitchen’s prior disciplinary action and conduct, and in order to safeguard the integrity of the State Bar of Georgia, see *In the Matter of Dowdy,*247 Ga. 488 (277 SE2d 36) (1981), we hereby order that Wallace Anthony Kitchen be disbarred from the practice of law in this state and his name be stricken from the rolls of those allowed to practice in Georgia. Kitchen is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Disbarred.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*821
      *William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Gene Chapman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.
________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________ 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-13-0003064 

27-JUL-2015 

10:12 AM SCWC-13-0003064 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII 

STATE OF HAWAII, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs.
 

KENNETH A. MONIZ, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
 

(CAAP-13-0003064; CR. NO. 12-1-0176) 

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) 

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Kenneth A. Moniz’s 

application for writ of certiorari filed on June 15, 2015, is 

hereby accepted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that no oral argument will be heard 

in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant to 

Rule 34(c) of the Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure, move for 

retention of oral argument. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, July 27, 2015. 

M. Kanani Laubach 

for petitioner 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

Kevin S. Hashizaki 

for respondent /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>      0000811117
<NAME>     First Capital Income and Growth Fund-Series XII

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       6,900,600
<SECURITIES>                                   496,300
<RECEIVABLES>                                  549,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,794,200
<PP&E>                                      86,582,300
<DEPRECIATION>                              21,081,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              74,772,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,348,500
<BONDS>                                     62,292,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,986,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                74,772,700
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,899,200
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,695,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               226,500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,204,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,155,600
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,155,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,155,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.25


</TABLE>
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

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-70,653]

      ( print page 31984)    
Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 27, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of American Appliance Products, Inc., Madison, Tennessee.

The petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition (TA-W-70,240) filed on May 20, 2009 that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of June 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-15757 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### Ex parte UNITED STATES.

District Court, E. D. Arkansas.

Jan. 25, 1939.

*199TRIMBLE, District Judge.

On petition of the United States of America that this Court announce a rule relative to whether the requirements of rule 4 of the New Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, that service of summons must be accompanied by delivery of a copy of the complaint or petition should be observed in suits instituted by the United States for the purpose of acquiring title to lands through condemnation proceedings in the exercise of its right of eminent domain, the Court announces as a rule for this jurisdiction that:

Subsection (7) of Rule 81(a) of said rules, which section reads as follows: “In proceedings for condemnation of property under the power of eminent domain, these, rules govern appeals but are not otherwise applicable”, has the effect of excluding condemnation suits instituted by the United States of America from the application of Rule 4 except in matters relating to appeals. It is declared that service of summons alone, in the manner and form required by law, constitutes sufficient service in such cases, and that there is no necessity for serving a copy of the complaint.
**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**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of SRKP 10, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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/ Richard
              A. RappaportRichard
                    A. Rappaport
                  Principal
                    Executive Officer
                  August
                    9, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         467,052
<SECURITIES>                                 2,397,424
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,238
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               832,457
<PP&E>                                         995,796
<DEPRECIATION>                                 277,258
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,872,190
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          360,683
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,489,549
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,872,190
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                68,448
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               174,134
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (345,686)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (345,686)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (345,686)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (13.39)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (13.39)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EPS IS NET LOSS PER $1,000 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Case 2:11-cv-00427-JLL -MAH   Document 26    Filed 10/11/11   Page 1 of 3 PageID: 135

Case 2:11-cv-00427-JLL -MAH   Document 26    Filed 10/11/11   Page 2 of 3 PageID: 136

Case 2:11-cv-00427-JLL -MAH   Document 26    Filed 10/11/11   Page 3 of 3 PageID: 137
NO. 07-06-0405-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B OCTOBER 23, 2006

______________________________ ROSETTA MATT HEW S, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 108 TH DISTRIC T COURT O F POTT ER COUNTY; NO. 52,396-E; H ONORABLE ABE LO PEZ, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Appellant, Roset

ta Mat thews, appe als fr

om her co nvi cti on for

poss essi on of a controlled substance in a dr ug free zone. Senten ce was i mposed on July 13, 2006. Certified copies of the Judgment have been deliv ered to this Court from the trial court clerk’s office. We will dismissthe appeal for want of jurisdic tion. Our appellate jurisdiction over a criminal appeal is triggered through a timely notice of appeal. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.C rim.App. 1996). In the absence of a notice of appeal ti mely filed i n compliance w ith th e requiremen ts of Rule of Appell ate2

Procedure 26, a court of appeals does no t obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal in a crimi nal case, and can take no action other than to dismis s the appeal. Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Cri m.App. 1998). As applicable her e, Rule o f Appellate Procedure 26.2( a) requires a notice of appeal i n a criminal case be filed within 30 days after the day sentence is imposed or susp end ed in open cour t, or within 90 da ys after imposition of the sentence if a timel y motion for new trial is filed. Rule 26.3 al lows for an extension of time if the appellant files a notice of appeal with the trial court wit hin 15 days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal and files a mot ion for extens ion with the appellate cour

t. Here, the record reflects that the cou rtimposed sentence on appell ant on July 13, 2006. No motion for new trial was filed, thus making the no tice of appeal due on August 14, 2006. The notice ofappeal was filed October 6, 2006 . Appella nt’s failure t o file a timelynotice of appeal or to m eet the requirements for an exten sion under Rul e 26.3 prevents this court from having jurisdic tion over her appeal. Slaton , 981 S.W.2d at 210. Consequently , the appeal is dismissed for w ant of jurisdic

tion.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not publish
.
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 882 

Recognizing the importance of the blueberry industry to the United States 

of America and supporting the designation of July 2020 as ‘‘National 

Blueberry Month’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2020 

Mr. UPTON (for himself and Mr. BISHOP of Georgia) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the importance of the blueberry industry to the 

United States of America and supporting the designation 

of July 2020 as ‘‘National Blueberry Month’’. 

Whereas blueberries are a native North American fruit, first 

used fresh and dried in food and medicines by Native 

Americans who introduced them to early colonists, which 

led to new uses and forms, including frozen, establishing 

traditions still observed today; 

Whereas the pioneering work conducted in New Jersey by 

Elizabeth White and Dr. Frederick Coville, a Department 

of Agriculture botanist, in the early 1900s, to domesticate wild lowbush blueberries resulted in the development of the hybrid for cultivated highbush blueberries; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 882 IH 

Whereas because of these early efforts, highbush blueberries 

are large, sweet, juicy berries that can be commercially 

produced and shipped, allowing them to become an important United States agricultural industry; 

Whereas highbush blueberries have a harvested area estimated at more than 97,000 acres and are produced in 48 

States by more than 14,000 growers and their families; 

Whereas highbush blueberry production in the United States 

has continually increased, with particular growth in the 

past two decades, to reach a harvest of 551,100,000 

pounds in 2018; 

Whereas blueberries are low in fat, and a source of fiber, vitamins, and minerals; 

Whereas blueberries are being studied to examine the role 

they may play in promoting good health in areas such as 

cardiovascular health, brain health, exercise, insulin response, and gut health; and 

Whereas highbush blueberries are harvested in the United 

States from April through early September, with the harvest reaching its peak in July: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of ‘‘National Blue3 berry Month’’; 

4 (2) recognizes the contributions of American 

5 growers and their families; and 

6 (3) recognizes that purchasing American grown 

7 blueberries supports farmers, jobs, and the economy. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 15, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 15, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15D0482. RANDY L. NICKLES v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2011CR00142
# table188_q19.1_state
(as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  (1)
    
    the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
period ended September 30, 2009 (the Report), filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, 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.
  /s/ Marc J. Eisenberg

Marc J. EisenbergPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3
                                                                    ------------

                                    AGREEMENT
                                    ---------

         This agreement is made as of the 3rd day of December, 2001, between
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC., a Delaware corporation ("Company") and JOSEPH J.
JACOBS ("Jacobs").

         In accordance with previous practice, the term for the ending of the
outstanding November 30, 1993 employment agreement between the parties is
extended from September 30, 2005 to September 30, 2006. All of the other
provisions of the agreement shall remain in force.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this agreement to be
executed by its duly authorized representatives, and Jacobs has affixed his
signature, as of the date first above written.

                                      JOSEPH J. JACOBS
                                      ("Jacobs")


                                         /s/ Joseph J. Jacobs
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      1111 S. Arroyo Parkway
                                      Pasadena, California 91105


                                      JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC.
                                      ("Company")


                                      By:    /s/ Noel G. Watson
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             Noel G. Watson,
                                             President


                                      By:    /s/ John W. Prosser
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             John W. Prosser, Jr.,
                                             Senior Vice President
                                             Finance and Administration
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





The undersigned, David Gorodyansky, the Chief Financial Officer of INTELLIGENT BUYING. INC.  (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 13th day of May 2008.



/s/ David Gorodyansky



David Gorodyansky

Principal  Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Intelligent Buying, Inc. and will be retained by Intelligent Buying, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 2:10-cv-06334-SDW -MCA Document 12 Filed 02/03/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 92
Case 2:10-cv-06334-SDW -MCA Document 12 Filed 02/03/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 93
Case 2:10-cv-06334-SDW -MCA Document 12 Filed 02/03/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 94
#### Linda Boyd, Respondent, v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority et al., Appellants.

[827 NYS2d 3]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edgar G. Walker, J.), entered June 8, 2005, after a jury trial, awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $450,000 for past and future pain and suffering, plus interest in the amount of $665.75, unanimously modified, on the law, the award of interest vacated and the matter remanded to the Clerk of Bronx County with directions to recompute interest at the rate of 3% per annum against both defendants, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Taken as a whole, the court’s charge to the jury met the appropriate standard that defendants were required to use reasonable care under all the circumstances in the maintenance of the bus *(Bethel v New York City Tr. Auth.,*92 NY2d 348 [1998]; *Bell v New York City Tr. Auth.,*21 AD3d 299 [2005], *lv dismissed*6 NY3d 770 [2006]).

To the extent that the judgment included interest at the rate of 9% instead of *3%,*the matter should be remanded (Public Authorities Law § 1212 [6]; § 1203-a [6]; *Klos v New York City Tr. Auth.,*240 AD2d 635 [1997], *lv dismissed*91 NY2d 885 [1998]; *Miller v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.,*120 AD2d 471 [1986]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.