alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Crim. No. 11-352(FSH) 

v. 

RAFAEL LOPEZ REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 

This matter having come before the Court by way of referral from the Hon. Faith S. 

Hochberg to conduct a proceeding pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and to issue a report and 

recommendation regarding the defendant's entry of a guilty plea; and the Court having 

considered the written consent by the defendant and defense counsel to have the proceeding 

before the Undersigned; and the Undersigned having conducted a proceeding pursuant to Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 11; and as more fully set forth and reflected in the transcript of proceedings dated 

January 18, 2012, the Court makes the following report: 

1. The defendant consented to the entry..of a guilty plea before a United States Magistrate 

Judge, subject to the defendant's ability to file any written objections to the findings and 

recommendations contained in this report and orally stated at the Rule 11 proceeding and subject 

to its adoption by the United States District Judge; 

2. The defendant fully understood the oath and consequences of failing to tell the truth at 

the plea hearing; 

3. The defendant fully understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of the 

guilty plea, including the maximum penalties that the defendant faces; 

4. The defendant fully understood that -while the United States Sentencing Guidelines 

are not binding, they will be considered; 

5. The defendant fully understood the right to plead "not guilty" and to be tried by a jury, 

Case 2:11-cr-00352-MCA Document 60 Filed 01/18/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 158
- with the assistance of counsel, and that the defendant would have the right to confront and crossexamine witnesses, call witnesses and compel the production of evidence if the defendant so 

chose, and to remain silent or testify, if the defendant so chose; 

6. The defendant fully understood that if the guilty plea is accepted, then there would be 

no trial in this case; 

7. The defendant was fully competent and capable of entering an informed guilty plea; 

8. The defendant's waiver of the right to file an appeal and to file a post-conviction 

challenge, and the plea were free, knowing, amf'voluntary; and 

9. There is a factual basis to support the plea of guilty. 

Based upon the foregoing, and based upon the transcript of the proceedings, it is on this 

181

h day of January, 2012, recommended to the United States District Judge that the defendant's 

plea of guilty be accepted and that a judgment of guilt to the Indictment be entered. 

Respectfully, 

s/Patty Shwartz 

United States Magistrate Judge 

NOTICE 

FAILURE TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE FOREGOING REPORT, WITHIN 

FOURTEEN DAYS OF RECEIPT OF SAME, MAY BAR DE NOVO DETERMINATION 

BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE OF AN ISSUE COVERED HEREIN AND 

SHALL BAR APPELLATE REVIEW OF SUCH FACTUAL FINDINGS AS MAY BE 

ACCEPTED OR ADOPTED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. 

Case 2:11-cr-00352-MCA Document 60 Filed 01/18/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 159
905 A.2d 865

#### IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT W. LAVESON, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 8, 2006.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 06-029, concluding that ROBERT W. LAYESON of MARGATE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1982, should be reprimanded for violating *RPC*1.7(b)(conflict of interest), and *RPC*5.5(a)(praetice of law while ineligible), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ROBERT W. LAVESON is hereby reprimanded; 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 and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
Exhibit 12.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of Infineon Technologies AG;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;
  /s/ Dr. Marco SchröterDr. Marco SchröterMember of the Management Board and
Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40334

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GERARDO ROJO-MARTINEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:06-CR-730-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gerardo Rojo-Martinez appeals the sentence imposed following his plea of

guilty to illegally reentering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)

and (b)(2). He argues that the district court acted unreasonably in upwardly

departing from the advisory guidelines range when imposing his sentence. He

also challenges the extent of the upward departure.

Because the district court departed upward pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3,

Rojo-Martinez received a guidelines sentence rather than a non-guidelines

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 28, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40334

2

sentence. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006); United

States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 935-36 (5th Cir. 2003). We review the

decision of the sentencing court to depart for abuse of discretion, ultimately

determining whether the sentence is unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

See United States v. Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d 345, 347 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

126 S. Ct. 2954 (2006). We review the extent of the departure for plain error

because it was not objected to by Rojo-Martinez in the district court. See United

States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in upwardly departing from

the recommended guidelines range. Its decision took into account the factors

identified in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2), including the need to promote respect for

the law, the need for adequate deterrence, and the need to protect the public

from future crimes by Rojo-Martinez. See § 4A1.3(a)(1). In addition, the

leniency of Rojo-Martinez’s prior sentences was an appropriate consideration by

the district court in considering the upward departure. See § 4A1.3, comment.

Moreover, Rojo-Martinez’s argument that any sentence of imprisonment would

have been an adequate deterrent to him committing future crimes is belied by

the fact that he served 30 days in prison during May and June of 2006 on a

probation revocation butillegally reentered the United States only months later,

in October 2006, in connection with the instant offense.

Rojo-Martinez’s sentence is nine months higher than the highest sentence

that could have been imposed under the advisory guidelines range. Based on the

record facts cited by the district court,the extent ofthe departure was within the

discretion of the district court. See Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d at 347.

Accordingly, there was no plain error regarding the extent of the upward

departure, and Rojo-Martinez’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
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 Ben Franklin Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, C. Steven Sjogren, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 13, 2010



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ C. Steven Sjogren                
|C. Steven Sjogren                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
ACCEPTED

04-15-00224-CR

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

6/9/2015 10:04:16 AM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 6/9/2015 10:04:16 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
Arnold B. Calmann (abc@saiber.com) 

Jeffrey Soos (js@saiber.com) 

Katherine A. Escanlar (kae@saiber.com) 

SAIBER LLC 

One Gateway Center, 10th Floor 

Newark, New Jersey 07102-5311 

973-622-3333 

973-286-2465 (facsimile) 

Douglass C. Hochstetler (DHochstetler@KelleyDrye.com) 

Constantine Koutsoubas (CKoutsoubas@KelleyDrye.com) 

KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 

333 West Wacker Drive 

26th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60606 

312-867-7070 

312-867-7096 (facsimile) 

Beth D. Jacob (BJacob@KelleyDrye.com) 

Clifford Katz (CKatz@KelleyDrye.com) 

Sung W. Kim (SuKim@KelleyDrye.com) 

KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP

101 Park Avenue 

Suite 1700 

New York, NY 10178 

212-808-7800 

212-808-7897 (facsimile) 

Attorneys for Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs 

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mylan Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

OREXO AB, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

 

MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. and, 

MYLAN INC, 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

Honorable Freda L. Wolfson, U.S.D.J. 

Honorable Lois H. Goodman, U.S.M.J. 

Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-03788 (FLW)(LHG) 

Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 95-7 Filed 10/05/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1351
2

ARNOLD B. CALMANN, hereby certifies as follows: 

1. I am an attorney-at-law of the State of New Jersey and admitted to 

practice before the Courts of the State of New Jersey and the United States District Court for the 

District of New Jersey. 

2. I hereby certify that I caused a copy of (1) Defendants/Counterclaim 

Plaintiffs Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mylan Inc.’s (collectively “Mylan”) Opening Claim 

Construction Brief; (2) Declaration of Constantine Koutsoubas (with exhibits 1 – 3); (3) Expert 

Declaration of Edmund J. Elder, Jr., Ph.D., R.Ph.; and (4) this Certificate of Service, to be served 

upon counsel of record by CM/ECF and electronic mail, this 5th day of October, 2012. 

Dated: October 5, 2012 s/ Arnold B. Calmann 

 Arnold B. Calmann 

Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 95-7 Filed 10/05/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1352
Case 2:11-cv-03671-WHW-CLW Document 37 Filed 06/07/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 500
Case 2:11-cv-03671-WHW-CLW Document 37 Filed 06/07/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 501
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: November 13, 2014 D-74-14 

___________________________________

In the Matter of JON C. COOPER,

an Attorney.

COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL 

STANDARDS,

Petitioner; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JON C. COOPER,

Respondent.

(Attorney Registration No. 2594471)

___________________________________

Calendar Date: October 14, 2014

Before: Garry, J.P., Rose, Lynch, Devine and Clark, JJ.

__________

Monica A. Duffy, Committee on Professional Standards,

Albany (Alison M. Coan of counsel), for petitioner.

Jon C. Cooper, respondent pro se.

__________

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1994. 

He was convicted in the United States District Court for the

District of Columbia, upon his guilty plea, of one count of

federal tax evasion (26 USC § 7201), a federal felony that has

been defined as a "serious crime" (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [d];

see Matter of Uhl, 88 AD3d 1052, 1052 [2011], appeal dismissed 19

NY3d 941 [2012]). Respondent does not dispute that, after he and

an accomplice defrauded an airline company of $1 million,

respondent failed to report at least $448,727 of the proceeds of

that scheme on his federal tax return. On March 6, 2014,
-2- D-74-14 

respondent was sentenced to 18 months in prison, to be followed

by three years of supervised release. The sentencing court

further ordered respondent to pay restitution to the defrauded

airline and the federal government in the total amount of

$1,140,109.86.

Petitioner now moves for an order imposing final discipline

pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (g). Respondent does not

contest the propriety of the motion.

Under the circumstances presented, and considering the

serious criminal conduct committed by respondent (see e.g. Matter

of Kerekes, 95 AD3d 1431, 1432 [2012]; Matter of Richichi, 52

AD3d 1109, 1109 [2008]), we conclude that he should be disbarred

in this state.

Garry, J.P., Rose, Lynch, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that petitioner's motion is granted; and it is

further 

ORDERED that respondent is disbarred and his name is

stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law of the

State of New York, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is commanded to desist and refrain

from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as

agent, clerk or employee of another; and respondent is hereby

forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any

court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public

authority, or to give another opinion as to the law or its

application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further
-3- D-74-14 

ORDERED that respondent shall comply with the provisions of

this Court's rules regulating the conduct of disbarred attorneys

(see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.9).

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09

- 24

- 00109

- CR

__________________ JUAN JOSE MORENO , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 9th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 22

- 04

- 042 34

- CR

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Although Juan Jose Moreno f iled a notice of appeal , he failed to arrange to
pay for the clerk ’ s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(a)(2). On April 30, 2024 , the
Clerk of the Court notified the parties that unless Moreno arranged to file the clerk ’ s record or explained why he needed additional time to do so , his appeal in Trial Court
Cause Number 22

- 04

- 04234

- CR would be dismissed for want of prosecution

. The Court, however, has not received a response to its request.2 Retained counsel has represented Moreno in his appeal

. Moreno has also not
filed an affidavit of indigence , and nothing in the appellate record shows that Moreno is entitled to proceed without paying costs. See id. 20

. 2.
Because Moreno has not explained why he failed to file the record in his appeal, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. 37.3(b) , 43.2(f).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM

Submitted on June 18, 2024 Opinion Delivered June 19, 2024 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
Case 3:11-cv-01086-FLW-DEA Document 94 Filed 07/03/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1902
Case 3:11-cv-01086-FLW-DEA Document 94 Filed 07/03/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1903
Exhibit A 

Case 2:11-cv-02843-ES Document 1-1 Filed 05/18/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 4
Case 2:11-cv-02843-ES Document 1-1 Filed 05/18/11 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 5
Case 2:11-cv-02843-ES Document 1-1 Filed 05/18/11 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 6
Case 2:11-cv-02843-ES Document 1-1 Filed 05/18/11 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 7
Case 2:11-cv-02843-ES Document 1-1 Filed 05/18/11 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 8
Case 2:11-cv-02843-ES Document 1-1 Filed 05/18/11 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 9
Case 2:11-cv-02843-ES Document 1-1 Filed 05/18/11 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 10
Case 2:11-cv-02843-ES Document 1-1 Filed 05/18/11 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 11
Case 2:11-cv-02843-ES Document 1-1 Filed 05/18/11 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 12
3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

6,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Chart 1-13. Since early 2003, the number of hires generally 

has exceeded separations

Hires

Separations

NOTE: Shaded area represents recession. Data are seasonally adjusted.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Thousands

Chart 1-13. Since early 2003, the number of hires generally 

has exceeded separations

• The average number of monthly hires and separations rose through 2003 and 

2004, but showed little net change in 2005, with an average of 4.8 million hires 

and 4.5 million separations per month.

• The number of hires and separations each month demonstrates that the amount 

of turnover in the labor market dwarfs net changes in employment.
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 USA Video Interactive Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Edwin Molina, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  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.   By: /s/Edwin Molina Edwin Molina, Chief Executive Officer March 31st, 2011
J-S70023-14

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

 Appellee

v.

JAMIE KIRNON

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1028 EDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order March 5, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0503741-2001

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MUNDY, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.* 

FILED DECEMBER 12, 2014

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY STRASSBURGER, J.:

I join the Majority Memorandum. I write separately to note that 

Appellant filed his PCRA petition on June 2, 2011. The record shows that the 

PCRA Intake Unit reviewed it on June 22, 2011. However, the PCRA court 

did not issue a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice until September 24, 2013, more than 

two years later. Such a long delay raises serious questions about whether 

justice is being served.
Robert J. Del Tufo 

Andrew Muscato 

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, 

 MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 

(A Delaware Limited Liability Partnership) 

Four Times Square 

New York, New York 10036 

Tel.: (212) 735-3000 

Fax: (212) 735-2000 

Andrew.Muscato@skadden.com 

Robert.DelTufo@skadden.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Ness Technologies, Inc., Satyam C. Cherukuri, 

Issachar "Sachi" Gerlitz, Morris Wolfson, 

Dan S. Suesskind, P. Howard Edelstein 

and Gabriel Eichler 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

NISSIM BOTTON, On Behalf of Himself and 

All Others Similarly Situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

NESS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., AHARON 

FOGEL, AJIT BHUSHAN, SATYAM C. 

CHERUKURI, SASHI GERLITZ, P. 

HOWARD EDELSTEIN, GABRIEL 

EICHLER, DAN S. SUESSKIND, MORRIS 

WOLFSON, CITI VENTURE CAPITAL 

INTERNATIONAL, JERSEY HOLDING 

CORPORATION, AND JERSEY 

ACQUISITION CORPORATION, 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

C.A. No.: 2:11-cv-03950(SRC)(MAS) 

CERTIFICATION OF 

ANDREW MUSCATO IN SUPPORT OF 

THE PSLRA AUTOMATIC STAY AND 

IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO EXPEDITE DISCOVERY 

ANDREW MUSCATO hereby certifies that: 

1. I am counsel with the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, 

Case 2:11-cv-03950-SRC -MAS Document 9-1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 107
2 

660484-Wilmington Server 1A - MSW 

counsel for Defendants Ness Technologies, Inc., Satyam C. Cherukuri, Issachar "Sachi" Gerlitz, 

Morris Wolfson, Dan S. Suesskind, P. Howard Edelstein and Gabriel Eichler (collectively, the 

"Ness Defendants") in the above captioned action. I submit this Certification in support of the 

PSLRA Automatic Stay and In Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite Discovery. 

2. I have attached hereto as Exhibit A, Ness Technologies, Inc., Proxy Statement 

(Schedule 14A) (June 30, 2011). 

3. I have attached hereto as Exhibit B, the Delaware Plaintiff's First Request for the 

Production of Documents and Things to Defendant Ness Technologies, Inc. and the Individual 

Defendants, dated July 14, 2011. 

4. I have attached hereto as Exhibit C, the transcript of the ruling on motion to 

expedite in Steamfitters Local Union 447 ex rel. inVentive Health, Inc. v. Walter, C.A. No. 

5492-CC (Del. Ch. June 21, 2010). 

5. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on July 20, 2011 

/s/ Andrew Muscato 

 Andrew Muscato 

Case 2:11-cv-03950-SRC -MAS Document 9-1 Filed 07/20/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 108
THE MCDANIEL LAW FIRM, PC 

54 Main Street 

Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 

(201) 845-3232 

(201) 845-3777 - facsimile 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Baseprotect UG, Ltd. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

BASEPROTECT UG, LTD., a German 

Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

JOHN DOES 1-X (such persons being 

presently unknown), 

 Defendants. 

 

Civ. Action. No. 2:11-cv-03621(CCC)(JAD) 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

AS TO IP ADDRESS 209.190.112.18 ONLY

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff BASEPROTECT UG, LTD., by its undersigned attorney, hereby voluntarily 

dismisses, without prejudice, the above-captioned matter pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) as 

to the defendant identified by Internet Protocol address 209.190.112.18 ONLY. No answer or 

motion for summary judgment has been served in this action by this defendant. 

DATED: April 1, 2012 THE MCDANIEL LAW FIRM, P.C. 

 By: 

 Jay R. McDaniel, Esq. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Baseprotect UG, Ltd.

DATED: 

 _________________________________________ 

 Hon. Joseph A. Dickson, U.S.M.J. 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 162 Filed 04/01/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1216
S06Y0661.

#### IN THE MATTER OF MARY WILLIS BAST.

(626 SE2d 506)

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the petition of Mary Willis Bast for the voluntary surrender of her license. In her *241petition, Bast admits that in handling the closing of the sale of real property on behalf of a lender, she paid out over $108,000 to two entities without receiving proper documentation authorizing the payment to the entities. Bast admits her conduct violated Rule 1.1 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 1.1 is disbarment.

Decided February 13, 2006.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Jonathan W. Hewett, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*Goodman, McGuffey, Lindsey & Johnson, Joe D. Jackson,*for Bast.

We accept Bast’s petition and the voluntary surrender of her license, which is tantamount to disbarment. It is hereby ordered that the name of Mary Willis Bast be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Bast is reminded of her duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Voluntary surrender of license accepted.*

*All the Justices concur.*