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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1912

EDWARD R. KOHOUT,

Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES TRUSTEE,

Trustee - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, 

District Judge. (1:13-cv-00183-IMK)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 23, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward R. Kohout, Appellant Pro Se. Ramona D. Elliott, Deputy 

Director/General Counsel, P. Matthew Sutko, Associate General 

Counsel, Sumi K. Sakata, Trial Attorney, Executive Office for 

United States Trustees, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Edward R. Kohout appeals the district court’s order affirming 

the bankruptcy court’s order: (1) sustaining the Trustee’s 

objection to Kohout’s application for employment as counsel in the 

underlying bankruptcy proceeding, and (2) requiring Kohout to 

disgorge $24,000 in fees he received for legal services. We have 

reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record included on appeal and 

have found no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States Trustee v. 

Kohout, No. 1:13-cv-00183-IMK (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 4, 2014). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid in the decisional process. 

 

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE DECEMBER
31, 1997 FORM 10-K OF HOLCO MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION - I AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              82
<SECURITIES>                                     9,307
<RECEIVABLES>                                       72
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,472
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              160
<BONDS>                                          8,723
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                         582
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,472
<SALES>                                            856
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   856
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    10
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 822
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     24
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 24
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        24
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04


</TABLE>
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00234-CV

Ex Parte Young Thoms Brown Jr. A/K/A Young Thomas Brown

On Appeal from the

156th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas

Trial Cause No. S-14-5191CV-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 23, 2015
S04Y1642.

#### IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY N. SCHWARTZ.

(599 SE2d 184)

Per curiam.

This matter is before the Court on Respondent Jeffrey N. Schwartz’ Petition for Voluntary Discipline filed pursuant to the provisions of State Bar Rule 4-227 (b) (2) prior to the State Bar’s filing of a Formal Complaint. In his petition, Schwartz seeks the imposition of an 18-month suspension retroactive to May 9, 2003 for his admitted violations of Rule 8.4 (a) (4) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, see Bar Rule 4-102 (d). Although a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (4) is punishable by disbarment, the State Bar recommended the acceptance of Schwartz’ voluntary petition and this Court agrees.

In his petition, Schwartz admits that between the Fall of 2001 and March 2003, he accessed, listened to, and randomly deleted voice mail messages left on the voice mail system of his former employer, an Atlanta law firm which discharged him in August 2001. Upon being confronted with his actions, Schwartz resigned his position at his current law firm and voluntarily ceased practicing law as of May 9, 2003. He also sought help from a licensed psychologist, wrote a letter of apology to his former firm, and cooperated fully with investigating authorities. He admits that his conduct was in violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (4). In mitigation, we note that Schwartz has no prior or subsequent incidents of inappropriate behavior related to his professional conduct; appears to be well-respected by other members of the Bar; has been forthright in his dealings with the State Bar regarding this matter; and has demonstrated contrition and remorse. There do not appear to be any cases directly applicable to the facts of this case; however, we agree with the State Bar that suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed to the profession, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal profession. Accordingly, we agree that an 18-month suspension retroactive to May 9, 2003, is an appropriate sanction in this case and we accept Schwartz’ petition for voluntary discipline. Schwartz hereby is suspended from the practice of law in Georgia for a period of 18 months, nunc pro tunc to May 9, 2003. He is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*217Decided July 12, 2004.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Paula J. Frederick, Deputy General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*Davis, Zipperman, Kirschenbaum & Lotito, Seth D. Kirschenbaum, James E. Spence, Jr.,*for Schwartz.

*Eighteen-month suspension, nunc pro tunc to May 9,2003.*

*All the Justices concur.*
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, July 20, 2009, 8 a.m. to July 21, 2009, 6 p.m., Beacon Hotel and Corporate Quarters, 1615 Rhode Island Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20036, which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on June 26, 2009, 74 FR 30597-30598.                          ( print page 32616)    

The meeting will be held at the Ritz Carlton Hotel, 1150 22nd Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. The meeting dates and time remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: June 30, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-16110 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 126 (Thursday, July 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31749-31750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15658]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-923-1310-FI; WYW156543]


Wyoming: Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and 
Gas Lease

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas 
lease.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(2), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a 
petition for reinstatement from Chesapeake Exploration, LLC for

[[Page 31750]]

Competitive oil and gas lease WYW156543 for land in Converse County, 
Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the 
rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Julie L. 
Weaver, Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-
6176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee has agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre, or 
fraction thereof, per year, and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The 
lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to 
reimburse the Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. 
The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease 
as set out in Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act 
of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing 
to reinstate lease WYW156543 effective November 1, 2008, under the 
original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and 
royalty rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting 
the lands.

Julie L. Weaver,
Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
[FR Doc. E9-15658 Filed 7-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                               69,406,640
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     88,824,158
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       88,824,158
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 3,267,659
<BONDS>                                       0
<COMMON>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                           85,556,499
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         88,824,158
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     20,307,334
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     12,229,413
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       8,077,921
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   8,077,921
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                          8,077,921
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               224.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                               224.08
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 32657]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16040]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


In the Matter of GenX Corporation; Order of Suspension of Trading

July 2, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
GenX Corporation because of questions about the accuracy and adequacy 
of publicly disseminated information appearing in stock promotional 
materials, and elsewhere, concerning among other things the company's 
purported partnerships and other relationships with certain individuals 
and entities.
    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 company listed above.
    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 
July 2, 2009, through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on July 16, 2009.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16040 Filed 7-2-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE P
@misc{1210031,
  author = {Karen Olsen},
  title = {Periodic Table of the Elements},
  year = {2018},
  month = {2018-11-03 04:11:00},
  publisher = {Special Publication (NIST SP), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  language = {en},
}
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6675

DELONTE E. TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THE STATE OF MARYLAND; STUART O. SIMMS, Esquire, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services of the State of Maryland; WILLIAM SONDERVAN, Commissioner of Corrections, State of Maryland; RONALD HUTCHINSON, Warden, Maryland House of Corrections, Jessup, Defendants - Appellees, and
JOHN DOE, I, Correctional Officer, Maryland House of Corrections, Jessup; JOHN DOE, II, Correctional Officer, Maryland House of Corrections, Jessup; JOHN DOE, III, Correctional Officer, Maryland House of Corrections, Jessup, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA02-4039-JFM)
Submitted: September 11, 2003 Decided: September 17, 20032 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Delonte E. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Sharon Stanley Street, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Delonte E. Taylor appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Taylor v. Maryland , No. CA-02-4039-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 25, 2003). 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
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
  UST
    INC.
  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
     Form 10-K
      Rules 13a-15(e) 15d-15(e)) 13a-15(f) 15d-15(f))
  (a)
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
    disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
    supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
    Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
    to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
    period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or
    caused such internal control over financial reporting to be
    designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
    regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
    preparation of financial statements for external purposes in
    accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  (c)
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure
    controls and procedures and presented in this report our
    conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
    and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
    report based on such evaluation; and  (d)
    Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys
    internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
    the Companys most recent fiscal quarter (the
    Companys fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
    report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
    materially affect, the Companys internal control over
    financial reporting; and  5.
    The Companys other certifying officer and I have
    disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
    control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors
    and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors
    (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a)
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
    design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
    which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
    Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report
    financial information; and(b)
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
    other employees who have a significant role in the
    Companys internal control over financial reporting.  MURRAY
    S. KESSLER
   
  Date: February 22, 2008
   119
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Spectrum Information Technologies, Inc.
New York, New York

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference and inclusion in the
Prospectus constituting a part of this Registration Statement listed on the
accompanying index of our report dated June 11, 1999, relating to the
consolidated financial statements of Spectrum Information Technologies, Inc. and
subsidiaries appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended March 31, 1999.


/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
BDO Seidman

New York, NY
July 11, 1999

<PAGE>
Index of Registration Statements

Form                                        Date

S-8                                         March 15, 1999
S-8                                         August 4, 1998
S-8                                         March 31, 1997
S-8                                         March 31, 1997
S-8                                         December 1, 1993
S-3                                         February 19, 1993
S-3                                         November 3, 1992
S-3                                         October 15, 1992
S-3                                         August 31, 1992
S-3                                         July 9, 1992
S-3                                         May 28, 1992
S-3                                         May 28, 1992
S-8                                         January 23, 1992
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dwayne Mahoney, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 881]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P Conviser, J.), rendered June 7, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of one count of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*
      *557
      *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations, including its evaluation of inconsistencies in testimony. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, DeGrasse, Freedman and Gische, JJ.
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**




Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
      Patient Safety Technologies, Inc., f/k/a Franklin Capital Corporation, on Form
      S-8 of our report dated April 10, 2006, with respect to the consolidated
      financial statements of Patient Safety Technologies, Inc. as of December 31,
      2005 and 2004 and each of the years then ended.


/s/
                  Rothstein, Kass & Company, P.C.


Roseland,
      New Jersey


June
      1,
      2007
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 29, 2010

d0322 

# Order

March 29, 2010

139707

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139707 COA: 290558 Wayne CC: 05-005848-FC DERRICK A. BLACK, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 26, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).