alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S08Y0118.

#### IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM C. CAMPBELL.

(653 SE2d 51)

Decided November 5, 2007.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*Lord, Bissell & Brooks, Michael V Coleman,*for Campbell.

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court for the second time on Respondent William C. Campbell’s Petition for Voluntary Surrender of License. In his petition, Campbell admits that in June 2006, he was sentenced in the U. S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on a conviction of three counts of tax evasion for violating 26 USC § 7206 (1); that the sentence was pursuant to a jury verdict of guilty; that the offenses for which he was convicted are felonies where the underlying conduct relates to his fitness to practice law; and that, due to the conviction, he violated Rule 8.4 (a) (2) of Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (2) is disbarment and pursuant to Bar Rule 4-110 (f), Campbell’s voluntary surrender of license is tantamount to disbarment.

In his first petition Campbell offered to voluntarily surrender his license provided that the license be reinstated if the conviction were overturned on appeal. The State Bar and special master, Katherine Lynch, recommended that this Court accept Campbell’s petition. The Court treated the condition as meaning that Campbell sought a voluntary suspension of his license pending resolution of his appeal pursuant to Bar Rule 4-106 (f), which it granted. See *In the Matter of Campbell,*281 Ga. 316 (637 SE2d 705) (2006).

Campbell now has filed another Petition for Voluntary Surrender of License in which he states that he does not intend to file any further appeals of his conviction and asks the Court to accept the voluntary surrender of his license to practice law, which he acknowledges is tantamount to disbarment.

We have reviewed the record and accept Campbell’s petition. Accordingly, the name of William C. Campbell hereby is removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Campbell is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Voluntary surrender of license accepted.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 376 Filed 11/21/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 15547
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 376 Filed 11/21/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 15548
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 376 Filed 11/21/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 15549
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 376 Filed 11/21/17 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 15550
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



In connection with the filing by ADE Corporation (the Company) of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended October 31,
2004 (the Report), the undersigned, as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: December 10, 2004 |  | /s/ Chris L. Koliopoulos             
|                        |  | Chris L. Koliopoulos, Ph.D.          
|                        |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1522

_____________________________
L EMUEL L. C OOPER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County

. Mark W. Moseley , Judge

. January 10, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , L EWIS , and W ETHERELL , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.3 31

.

_____________________________2 Lemuel L. Cooper, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Brooke Moody , Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

_______________________________________

:

FLORENCE KIMANZI, :

: Civil Action No. 11-3466 (FSH)

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : ORDER TO SUBMIT

: JOINT STATUS REPORT

MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC., et al. :

:

Defendants. :

_______________________________________:

IT IS on this 8 day of February, 2012, th

ORDERED that all parties shall jointly provide the Court with the following information,

set forth in a single report not to exceed eight pages in length, by February 22, 2012;

1. Indicating whether this is a jury or non-jury case;

2. Briefly describing the nature of the case, the relief requested by the parties, the 

substantive issues in the case, and the parties’ positions on each issue;

3. Stating the date discovery closes in this matter;

4. Stating whether (and when, if possible) a party intends to file any, or additional,

dispositive motions, including a brief description of the grounds for such motion; and

5. Stating whether a party or parties feel a settlement conference with the Court would be

beneficial, and whether the parties are currently engaged in settlement negotiations.

PARTIES ARE ADVISED THAT THIS ORDER DOES NOT AFFECT ANY

DISCOVERY OR OTHER DEADLINE SET BY THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

 s/ Faith S. Hochberg 

United States District Judge

Case 2:11-cv-03466-FSH-PS Document 23 Filed 02/08/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 103
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 Annual Report of Calgon Carbon Corporation (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John S.
Stanik, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto 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 conditions and result of operations of the Company for the periods
presented therein.





/s/ John S. StanikJohn
      S. StanikChief
      Executive OfficerMarch
      13, 2009





(A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Calgon Carbon Corporation and will be
retained by Calgon Carbon Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.)





This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Hon. Stanley Chesler, D.CJ.

I S Dismet c. ourt Distriu ol Ne Jersey

Frank R. .1.aufenberg, Courthouse B1dg.

Federal Square PC. Box 999

Newark, N.J. 07101

Re: USA v. Juan Gomex

Case No. 2:1 1 crM0292-SRC

Mv File No. 31311)

Dear Judge ChesTer:

Please be advised that I represent Juan Gomez in the above captioned matter, 1r. Gomez has already entered a guilty plea and is awaiting sentencing. Mr. Gomez seeks permission from the Court to participate in a softball league/family outing every Thursday from P M 11 P M at the River and Marshall Parks in Paterson, N J Defendant would be required to return home by 11:30 P.M.

I have discussed this request with the Assistant United States Attorney Robert Frazer who consents to the request I have also discussed this request with the United States Pretrial Services who advise me that they do not take a position on the request.

ectfu11 -

Robert J. DeGroot, Esq.

RiD: on

cc: Robert Frazer, AUSA

Keli:y Domiiigues, .Pretrial Services

11 is 51) ORDERLU that the Delendant may paiiiciparc in a softball league; family outing with the terms cnn crated in the above paragraphs and. it is thrt her ordered that. all other suLh ndinon of tii Dkni mt presnLnc. teas 3sffiain nfcet

5115 (D Di I )tianlev R Chesler I S 1) C
Case 2:11-cr-00353-JLL Document 19 Filed 05/19/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 17
Case 2:11-cr-00353-JLL Document 19 Filed 05/19/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 18
Case 2:11-cr-00353-JLL Document 19 Filed 05/19/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 19
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Chart 1-2. The unemployment rate is down from its most 

recent peak in June 2003

NOTE: Shaded areas represent recessions. Data are seasonally adjusted.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Percent

Chart 1-2. The unemployment rate is down from its most 

recent peak in June 2003

• The unemployment rate rose from 4.3 percent at the onset of the most recent 

recession in March 2001 (as designated by the National Bureau of Economic 

Research) to 6.3 percent in June 2003. It had declined to 4.5 percent by 

December 2006.

• At the onset of the recession in March 2001, some 11 percent of unemployed 

persons had been looking for work for 27 weeks or longer. This share of the 

unemployed accounted for by long-term unemployed rose to nearly 24 percent 

by March 2004 before declining to 16 percent at the end of 2006.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2908

ELDON WAYNE RILEY, JR, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus WEYERHAEUSER PAPER COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-94-11-3-MU) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eldon Wayne Riley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Max Daniel McGinn, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant and denying his motion for reconsideration. With regard to the entry of summary judgment, Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal periodestablished by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established by Fed.R. App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court entered its order on September 5, 1995; Appel lant's notice of appeal was filed on October 18, 1995. Appellant's motion for reconsideration, filed more than ten days after the order granting summary judgment, does not toll the appeal period. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(F). Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtainan extension of the appeal period deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore dismiss this portion of the appeal. Appellant's notice of appeal is timely with respect to the district court's order denying the motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the motion for reconsideration on the reasoning of the district court. Riley v. Weyerhaeuser Paper Co. , No. CA-94-11-3-MU (W.D.N.C. Oct.311, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion to bar Defendant from contacting "potential witnesses" and his motion to prevent Defendantfrom making architectural changes to its facilities pending appellate review. 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.

DISMISSED IN PART and AFFIRMED IN PART
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

35. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

[In thousands]

Category

Total Age Sex

2013 2014

16 to 24

years

25 to 54

years

55 years

and over Men Women

2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014

Total not in the labor force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90,290 92,025 17,458 17,418 23,630 23,744 49,201 50,863 35,889 36,865 54,401 55,159

Do not want a job now1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83,901 85,702 15,362 15,377 20,898 21,075 47,641 49,250 32,947 33,932 50,953 51,770

Want a job1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,390 6,323 2,096 2,041 2,733 2,669 1,561 1,614 2,941 2,934 3,448 3,389

Did not search for work in previous

year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,402 3,448 1,079 1,072 1,327 1,337 996 1,039 1,479 1,524 1,923 1,924

Searched for work in previous year,

but not in past 4 weeks2. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,988 2,875 1,017 969 1,406 1,332 565 574 1,463 1,409 1,525 1,465

Not available to work now. . . . . . . . . . . . 628 667 286 303 272 284 70 81 239 270 390 397

Marginally attached (available to

work now)3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,360 2,207 731 666 1,134 1,048 495 493 1,224 1,139 1,135 1,068

Discouraged over job

prospects4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861 739 213 184 431 350 218 205 510 443 351 296

Reasons other than

discouragement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,498 1,468 518 482 703 697 277 289 714 696 784 772

Family responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . 229 239 33 34 148 160 48 45 61 65 169 174

In school or training. . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 267 234 208 56 54 4 4 159 149 135 118

Ill health or disability. . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 161 18 16 74 84 58 61 74 82 77 80

Other5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823 801 232 224 425 398 166 179 420 400 403 401

1

Includes some persons who are not asked if they want a job.

2 Persons who had a job in the prior 12 months must have searched since the end of that job.

3 Persons ′′marginally attached to the labor force′′ are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during

the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks.

4 Discouraged workers are persons marginally attached to the labor force who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for reasons such as thinks no work

available, could not find work, lacks schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and other types of discrimination.

5

Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, as well as a small number for which

reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained.

NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

1
Exhibit 31.1
 BROOKSIDE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS CORP
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(a) / 15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Brookside Technology Holdings
Corp.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15e for the small business issuer) and have:
 (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 small business issuer, including its
consolidating subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer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(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small
business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of
directors (or persons performing 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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting.
  By:
    
    /s/ Michael NoleName:
    
    Michael NoleTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1790
NORMAN TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL KANTOR, Secretary of Commerce, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CA-92-1799-K) Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 13, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Maury S. Epner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying hismotions (1) to compel; (2) for default judgment; (3) for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to amend his complaint; and (4) for judgment on the pleadings, and granting summary judgment to the Defendant on his action filed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967. See 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-34 (West 1985 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Because Taylor failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADEA, we affirm. See Conkwright v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. , 933 F.2d 231, 233 (4th Cir. 1991). 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
Case 3:10-cr-00571-PGS Document 33 Filed 03/10/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 89
1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Bezalel GROSSBERGER a/k/a Ben Gross,

Plaintiff,

v.

Patrick RUANE and Marion RUANE,

Defendants.

 

 

Civ. No. 11-3728

MEMORANDUM ORDER

THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.

This matter has come before the Court on Plaintiff Bezalel Grossberger’s Motion for 

Reconsideration [docket # 24], which asks the Court to reconsider its previous Memorandum 

Order of March 27, 2012 [23]. In its Memorandum Order, the Court denied Plaintiff’s previous

Motion for Reconsideration [17] that sought to have the Court review its Opinion and Order of 

December 14, 2011 [15, 16] dismissing the Complaint. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1, “a 

motion for reconsideration shall be served and filed within 14 days after the entry of the order or 

judgment on the original motion by the Judge or the Magistrate Judge.” L. Civ. R. 7.1(i). 

Because Plaintiff did not file the current motion until 29 days after the Court’s March 27, 2012 

Memorandum Order, Plaintiff’s motion is untimely and will not be considered by the Court.

Therefore, IT IS on this 7

th day of May, 2012,

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [24] is DENIED; and it is

ORDERED that this case remains CLOSED.

/s/ Anne E. Thompson

ANNE E. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.

Case 3:11-cv-03728-AET-LHG Document 27 Filed 05/08/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 213
EXHIBIT 99.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Steve Humphreys, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of ActivCard S.A. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of ActivCard S.A.



Date:  June 27, 2003



/s/    STEVE
HUMPHREYSSteve Humphreys Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ActivCard S.A. and will be retained by ActivCard S.A. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.