alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Goodman, 126 Ohio St.3d 1240, 2010-Ohio-4986.]

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. GOODMAN. 

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Goodman, 

126 Ohio St.3d 1240, 2010-Ohio-4986.] 

Attorneys at law — Reciprocal discipline from the Supreme Court of New Mexico 

— Public reprimand — Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4). 

(No. 2010-1318 — Submitted September 13, 2010 — Decided 

September 20, 2010.) 

ON CERTIFIED ORDER of the Supreme Court of New Mexico, No. 31,936. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} This cause is pending before the Supreme Court of Ohio in 

accordance with the reciprocal discipline provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F). 

{¶ 2} On July 28, 2010, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed with this 

court a certified copy of an order of the Supreme Court of the State of New 

Mexico entered December 17, 2009, in In re Goodman, in case No. 31,936, 

publicly reprimanding respondent. The respondent did not provide written 

notification to the Clerk of this court within 30 days as required by Gov.Bar R. 

V(11)(F)(1). On August 4, 2010, this court ordered respondent to show cause 

why identical or comparable discipline should not be imposed in this state. 

Respondent did not respond to the show cause order. This cause was considered 

by the court and on consideration thereof, 

{¶ 3} It is ordered and adjudged by this court that pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 

V(11)(F)(4), respondent, Jay Phillip Goodman, Attorney Registration No. 

0036729, last known business address in Sante Fe, New Mexico, be publicly 

reprimanded. 

{¶ 4} It is further ordered, sua sponte, by the court that within 90 days of 

the date of this order, respondent shall reimburse any amounts that have been 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

awarded against respondent by the Clients' Security Fund pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 

VIII(7)(F). It is further ordered, sua sponte, by the court that if, after the date of 

this order, the Clients' Security Fund awards any amount against respondent 

pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F), respondent shall reimburse that amount to the 

Clients' Security Fund within 90 days of the notice of such award. 

{¶ 5} It is further ordered, sua sponte, that all documents filed with this 

court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of 

Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, 

number, and timeliness of filings. All documents are subject to Rules 44 through 

47 of the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio, which govern access 

to court records. 

{¶ 6} It is further ordered, sua sponte, that service shall be deemed made 

on respondent by sending this order and all other orders in this case by certified 

mail to respondent’s last known address. 

{¶ 7} It is further ordered that the Clerk of this court issue certified 

copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be 

made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the 

costs of publication. 

BROWN, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

______________________
We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in this Annual  Report on
Form 10-K of Featherlite  Mfg., Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1997 of our
report on the  consolidated  financial  statements  dated February 2, 1998 which
appears  on page 24 of the  annual  report to  shareholders  for the year  ended
December 31, 1997.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
on Form S-8 (No.  33-90860) of the Featherlite Mfg., Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan
and Registration Sttement on Form S-3 (No. 333-20969) of our reports, each dated
February 2, 1998, on the consolidated  financial statements of Featherlite Mfg.,
Inc., which reports and statements  appear,  or are incorporated by reference in
the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997.



                                       /s/  McGladrey & Pullen, LLP


Rochester, Minnesota
March 28, 1998
Order entered September 9, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00629-CR

DEWAYNE LAMAR JONES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-52961-N

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On August 15, 2016, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

reporter’s record had not been filed. We ADOPT the August 31, 2016 findings that: (1) 

appellant desires to pursue the appeal; (2) appellant is indigent and is represented by Riann 

Moore of the appellate division of the Dallas County Public Defender’s Office, who made a 

timely request for preparation of the reporter’s record on June 2, 2016; (3) the court reporter was 

Karren Jones; (4) Ms. Jones did not receive the initial request for the reporter’s record but has 

been made aware of it and requests thirty days to complete the reporter’s record for filing; and 

(5) the trial court recommended the thirty-day extension for Ms. Jones to complete the record. 
We ORDER court reporter Karren Jones to file the compiled reporter’s record in these appeals 

no later than September 28, 2016.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

DENISE L. BULEBOSH AND MICHAEL J.

BULEBOSH, JR., HER HUSBAND

 v.

ROBERT FLANNERY AND

WESTMORELAND PODIATRY

ASSOCIATES

PETITION OF: ROBERT FLANNERY,

D.P.M.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 338 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Robert B. Barnhill, Jr., Chief Executive
Officer of TESSCO Technologies Incorporated, (the Company), certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
that:  1.The
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended March 28,
2010, (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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:
  May 27, 2010
  /s/
  Robert B. Barnhill, Jr.Robert B. Barnhill, Jr.  The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
**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**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Edward H. Dickinson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to 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 condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/  Edward
                H. DickinsonEdward
                H. Dickinson, Chief Financial Officer
              August
                9, 2007
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 7, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00324

- CV

Madhavan A . PISHARODI, M.D., P.A.

,

Appellant

v.

UNITED BIOLOGICS, L.L.C,

Appellee

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CI06067

Honorable Rosie Alvarado, Judge Presidi ng



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due December 6, 2018. On December 4, 2018, appellant

filed a motion requesting an extension of time of sixty (60) days to file his brief. We granted the

extension, making the new brief due February 6, 2019. On February 4, 2019, appellant filed a

second motion requesting an additional thirty (30) days to file his brief. After consideration, we

GRANT app ellant’s motion and ORDER appellant’s brief due on or before March 8, 2019

. Appellant is advised that no further extensions of time to file the brief will be granted absent

written proof of extraordinary circumstances.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 7th day of February, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
EX-10.4



 Exhibit 10.4 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 SUB-ADVISORY AGREEMENT 
 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO
SUB-ADVISORY AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into effective as of February 28, 2018, by and between Hennessy Advisors, Inc., a California corporation
(“Manager”), and SPARX Asset Management Co., Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of Japan (“Sub-Adviser”). 

RECITALS 
 WHEREAS,
Manager and Sub-Adviser previously entered into a Sub-Advisory Agreement, effective as of February 28, 2014 (the “Agreement”) pursuant to which Sub-Adviser agreed to render investment advisory and other services to Manager and the Funds (as defined in the Agreement) pursuant to the Agreement; and 

WHEREAS, Manager and Sub-Adviser desire to amend certain terms of the Agreement as set forth
herein. 
 AGREEMENT 

NOW, THEREFORE, Manager and Sub-Adviser agree as follows: 

 

	1.	Schedule A to the Agreement is deleted and replaced in its entirety with Schedule A to this Amendment. All other provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. 


 

	2.	Sections 12 through 19 and Section 23 of the Agreement are incorporated into this Amendment, mutatis mutandis. 


* * * 
 (Signatures on next
page.) 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed by their
duly authorized officers as of the date first mentioned above. 
  

			
	HENNESSY ADVISORS, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Neil J. Hennessy
		 	Neil J. Hennessy
		 	Chief Executive Officer
	
	SPARX ASSET MANAGEMENT CO., LTD.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Shuhei Abe
		 	Shuhei Abe
		 	President


  
 Signature Page to First
Amendment to Sub-Advisory Agreement 







 SCHEDULE A 

(as of February 28, 2018) 
  

					
	 Fund Name
	  	Sub-Advisory Fee per Annum
for Each Below Range of Average Daily Net Assets
	  	Range	  	Fee
(as a % of average daily net assets)
	Hennessy Japan Fund	  	$0 – $500 million	  	0.35%
	  	$500,000,000.01 – $1 billion	  	0.40%
	  	Above $1 billion	  	0.42%
	Hennessy Japan Small Cap Fund	  	$0 – $500 million	  	0.35%
	  	$500,000,000.01 – $1 billion	  	0.40%
	  	Above $1 billion	  	0.42%

  
 Schedule A
#### Green Realty Management Corp., Appellant, v Visions Realty, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[665 NYS2d 885]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered August 12, 1997, which granted plaintiffs motion for reargument of a prior order denying plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in an action seeking specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, and, upon reargument, adhered to the prior order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While we find that defendant seller was not justified in entering a new contract, and that defendant thereafter waived the time of the essence closing dates it had set *(see, Stefanelli v Vitale,*223 AD2d 361), issues of fact precluding summary judgment still remain, including which party breached the contract, and the meaning of the tax provision contained therein. Defendant’s claim that plaintiff was not ready, willing and able to purchase the property is unpreserved, and we decline to reach it. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mad Catz Interactive, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrant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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: February 19, 2008
    /s/ Stewart A. HalpernStewart A. Halpern, Chief Financial Officer
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 Alabama National BanCorporation (Alabama National) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), John H. Holcomb, III, Chief Executive Officer of Alabama National, and William E. Matthews, V, Chief Financial Officer of Alabama National, each
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his 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 Alabama National.



Dated: March 12, 2004

|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|                                       
|                                       
|/s/    JOHN H. HOLCOMB, III            
|                                       
|John H. Holcomb Chief Executive
Officer

|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|                                              
|                                              
|/s/    WILLIAM E. MATTHEWS, V                 
|                                              
|William E. Matthews, V Chief Financial
Officer
#### Leah Kleinworm, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

[666 NYS2d 481]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated November 14, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated July 21, 1997, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated November 14, 1996, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated July 21, 1997, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated July 21, 1997, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendant New York City Transit Authority for summary judgment, as the acts and/or omissions of which the plaintiff complains involved a governmental, rather than proprietary, *488function, and the plaintiff does not allege that she was owed a special duty by the defendant *(see, Clinger v New York City Tr. Auth.,*85 NY2d 957; *Weiner v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 55*NY2d 175; *Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth.,*184 AD2d 417; *Farber v New York City Tr. Auth.,*143 AD2d 112). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman, Krausman and Lerner, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


Subsidiary Name                                      State of Incorporation
---------------                                      ----------------------

Spanish Broadcasting System of Greater Miami, Inc.    Delaware
Spanish Broadcasting System of Illinois, Inc.         Delaware
Spanish Broadcasting System Inc.                      New Jersey
Spanish Broadcasting System of San Antonio, Inc.      Delaware
JuJu Media, Inc.                                      New York
Alarcon Holdings, Inc.                                New York
Spanish Broadcasting System of California, Inc.       California
Spanish Broadcasting System of Puerto Rico, Inc.      Delaware
Spanish Broadcasting System of Florida, Inc.          Florida
SBS of Greater New York, Inc.                         New York
SBS Funding, Inc.                                     Delaware
Spanish Broadcasting System of Puerto Rico, Inc.      Puerto Rico
Spanish Broadcasting System Network, Inc.             New York
Spanish Broadcasting System Finance Corporation       Delaware
Spanish Broadcasting System Holding Company, Inc.     Puerto Rico
SBS Promotions, Inc.                                  New York
KTCY Licensing, Inc.                                  Delaware
KSAH Licensing, Inc.                                  Delaware
KPTI, Inc. Licensing, Inc.                            Delaware
KFSG Licensing, Inc. (f/k/a KMJR Licensing, Inc.)     Delaware
KFSB Licensing, Inc. (f/k/a KNJR Licensing, Inc.)     Delaware
WRMA Licensing, Inc.                                  Delaware
WXDJ Licensing, Inc.                                  Delaware
WLEY Licensing, Inc.                                  Delaware
WSKQ Licensing, Inc.                                  Delaware
KLEY Licensing, Inc.                                  Delaware
WCMQ Licensing, Inc.                                  Delaware
KLAX Licensing, Inc.                                  Delaware
WPAT Licensing, Inc.                                  Delaware
WCMA Licensing, Inc.                                  Delaware
WZET Licensing, Inc. (f/k/a WSMA Licensing, Inc.)     Delaware
WMEG Licensing, Inc.                                  Delaware
WCOM, Inc.                                            Puerto Rico
WZNT, Inc.                                            Puerto Rico
WEGM, Inc.                                            Puerto Rico
WIO, Inc.                                             Puerto Rico
WNOD, Inc.                                            Puerto Rico
WOQI, Inc.                                            Puerto Rico
Cadena Estereotempo, Inc.                             Puerto Rico
Portorican American Broadcasting, Inc.                Puerto Rico
Spanish Broadcasting System Group of
  Puerto Rico, Inc.                                   Puerto Rico
Spanish Broadcasting System SouthWest, Inc.           Delaware
Spanish Broadcasting System-San Francisco, Inc.       Delaware
#### Jerry TAYLOR v. David G. BROWN, Individually d/b/a Brown, Brown & West Real Estate, Insurance and Property Management and the Unknown Owner of Cedar Ridge Apartments.

Civ. No. 3-78-353.

United States District Court, E. D. Tennessee, N. D.

Dec. 29, 1978.

Cecil B. Settlemire, Jr., Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiff.

Joe Guess, Knoxville, Tenn., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM

ROBERT L. TAYLOR, District Judge.

This case is a minimum wage claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“the Act”). Before the Court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment and plaintiff’s response thereto. Oral arguments have been heard on the motion.

The defendants are owners and/or operators of a residential apartment complex known as “Cedar Ridge Apartments.” Plaintiff had been employed at this apartment complex as a live-in maintenance man. Defendants deny any activity in interstate commerce, claiming to be a local concern only.

The Act applies only to employees engaged in commerce, and employees of businesses or enterprises engaged in commerce. Commerce is essentially defined in the Act as interstate commerce. 29 U.S.C. § 203(b).

The affidavits submitted by the parties, and the record, construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff indicate that the only non-local aspect of defendants’ business is an alleged out-of-state owner. No overt activity in interstate commerce on the part of this out-of-state owner is suggested. *See e.g. Brennan v. Ray Stern Investment Corp.,*375 F.Supp. 705 (N.D.Texas 1974) (holding that daily active management via telephone by an out-of-state owner brings apartment building employees within the protection of the Act). In the opinion of the Court, the allegation that there is an out-of-state owner of defendants’ apartment complex is not sufficient, by itself, to show that defendants, or any of their employees are engaged in interstate commerce. Nothing else in the record suggests that either the defendants or defendants’ employees were engaged in “commerce” as defined by the Act. Rather, the record indicates that defendants’ apartment complex is a local concern only and thus not within the Act. *See Houchin v. Thompson,*438 F.2d 927 (6th Cir. 1970); *See also Tullis v. Shavin,*332 F.2d 616*aff’g.*230 F.Supp. 52 (E.D.Tenn.1963), and *Lenca v. Laran Enterprises,*388 F.Supp. 782 (N.D.Ill.1974).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment of dismissal be, and the same hereby is, granted.

Order accordingly.