alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
106 A.3d 479

#### IN THE MATTER OF CONSTANTINE BARDIS, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 037561998).

January 22, 2015.

ORDER

This matter have been duly presented to the Court pursuant to *Rule*1:20—10(b), following the granting of a motion for discipline by consent in DRB 14-330 of CONSTANTINE BARDIS of LAKE COMO, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1999;

And the Office of Attorney Ethics and respondent having signed a stipulation of discipline by consent in which it was agreed that respondent violated *RPC*1.15(a) (commingling of client and personal funds in trust account), *RPC*1.15(d) (recordkeeping deficiencies) and *Rule*1:21-6 (recordkeeping violations);

And the parties having agreed that respondent’s conduct violated *RPC*1.15(a) and (d), and *Rule*1:21-6, and that said conduct warrants a censure or lesser discipline;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having determined that a reprimand is the appropriate discipline for respondent’s unethical conduct and having granted the motion for discipline by consent in District Docket No. XIV-2013-0510E;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having submitted the record of the proceedings to the Clerk of the Supreme Court for the entry of an order of discipline in accordance with *Rule*l:20-16(e);

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that CONSTANTINE BARDIS of LAKE COMO 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

*341ORDERED 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.
RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

2014-0038.

#### State v. Lintz.

Lake App. No. 2013-L-066, 2013-Ohio-4847. Reported at 138 Ohio St.3d 1468, 2014-Ohio-1674, 6 N.E.3d 1205. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Node 
-                   2022 Annual FOIA Report              

#   2022 Annual FOIA Report

2022 Annual FOIA Report.pdf

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ Nos. 97-1837

___________ Victor Orlowski, * * Plaintiff - Appellant, * * Sharon Orlowski, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * Milton Morrison; Roger Morrison; * Richard Morrison; Kenneth Morrison; * Susan M. Morrison Roberts; Gretchen * Roberts; Robert Foersterling, * * Defendants - Appellees. * *

___________ Appeals from the United States Nos. 97-3990 District Court for the

___________ Eastern District of Missouri. Victor Orlowski; Sharon Orlowski, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Plaintiffs - Appellants, * * v. * * Milton Morrison; Roger Morrison; * Richard Morrison; Kenneth Morrison; * Susan M. Morrison Roberts; Gretchen *The H onorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for th e 1 Eastern District of Missouri. -2- Roberts, * Defendants, * * Robert Foersterling, * * Defendant - Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 14, 1998 Filed: June 2, 1998

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Victoran d Sharon Orlowski filed this diversity action against the defendant s after disputes arose related to their business arrangements. The district court granted 1 summary judgment in favor of all the defendants, and the Orlowskis sought to amend their complaint against the Morrisons. The district court withdrew permission to file an amended complaint after a chambers conference revealed that the Morrisons had not agreed to the amendment, contrary to the representations of the plaintiffs. Th e Orlowskis now appeal from the j udgments in favor of the defendants and the denial of leave to amend their complaint. After a careful review of the record, we find no error and affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47B.-3-

A true copy.
ATTEST: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2031

HESHAM MOUMEN; FOUAD MOUMEN; KHADIGA MOUMEN,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

AIRBORNE EXPRESS; AIRBORNE FREIGHT CORPORATION; ABX AIR, INCORPORATED; AIRBORNE FREIGHT

CORPORATION, d/b/a Airborne Express,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge.

(CA-98-1492-A)

Submitted: February 29, 2000 Decided: March 14, 2000

Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen L. Shelnutt, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellants. David R.

Shane, SHANE & TAITZ, San Francisco, California; David I. Bledsoe,

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Hesham, Fouad, and Khadiga Moumen appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the corporate defendants in the Moumens’ civil action alleging breach of

contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Moumen v. Airborne Express, No. CA-98-1492-A

(E.D. Va. July 15, 1998). 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 10.22
 AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN HARLAND CLARKE HOLDINGS CORP.
AND DANIEL SINGLETON
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW, THEREFORE
 1.
    
    Section 2.1 is hereby modified by deleting the date of December 31, 2010 and
inserting in its place the date December 31, 2013.2.
    
    All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall otherwise
remain in place, except as expressly amended herein.
  HARLAND CLARKE HOLDINGS CORP.By:
    /s/ Charles DawsonName:
    Charles DawsonTitle:
    President & CEO/s/ Daniel SingletonDaniel Singleton Page 1of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2333

DONOVAN ANTHONY DAWKINS, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A74-343-669) Submitted: June 15, 2005 Decided: July 12, 2005 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Payne, BLAIR & LEE, P.C., College Park, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Carolyn M. Piccotti, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Donovan Anthony Dawkins, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of both an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) and the immigration judge, arguing that his due process rights were violated when neither court considered his application for voluntary departure. Dawkins concedes removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), but contends that the court did not properly consider his application for voluntary departure. We deny the petition. On May 11, 2005, The REAL ID Act, 119 Stat. § 231 went into effect, amending 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2) (2000) to add a subsection (D) that states in pertinent part: (D) Judicial review of certain legal claims Nothing in subparagraph (B) or (C), or in any other provision of this chapter (other than this section) which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2005). Although we have jurisdiction to consider Dawkins’ claim, we find that it was not properly raised or pursued before either the immigration judge or the Board. We therefore find that Dawkins was not entitled to adjudication on the issue. Accordingly, we deny Dawkins’ petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions- 3 - are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000803016
<NAME> AMPLICON, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          92,540
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64,803
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,945
<INVENTORY>                                     25,909
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           3,433
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,355
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 409,857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,624
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           114
<OTHER-SE>                                     167,070
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   409,857
<SALES>                                         42,368
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                80,113
<CGS>                                            8,388
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,225
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,843
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,510
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 32,535
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,526
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,009
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,009
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.67


</TABLE>
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   EEO Contact Numbers              

#   EEO Contact Numbers

##           Downloads        

2021-12-17%20EEO%20Contact%20Numbers%202021.pdf

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
# FY 2016 F7s
#### Linda ROLLINS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ST. JUDE MEDICAL INC., doing business as St. Jude Medical Cardiovascular Division, Cardiology Division, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-30524

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 27, 2010.

Richard L. Fewell, Jr., Esq., James M. Wilkerson, Law Office of Richard L. Fe-well, Jr., West Monroe, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Edward F. Fox, Esq., Bassford Remele, Minneapolis, MN, David E. Verlander, III, McLeod Verlander, Monroe, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Linda Rollins appeals the district court’s judgment granting the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant-Appellee St. Jude Medical Inc. (“St. Jude Medical”), dismissing Rollins’s action with prejudice, granting St. Jude Medical’s Motion in Limine to exclude irrelevant and inadmissible evidence, denying Rollins’s Motion for Leave to File Untimely Opposition, and denying as moot St. Jude Medical’s Motion for Leave to File Reply Memoranda. We have now reviewed the record on appeal in its entirety, including the briefs of the parties and the applicable law as set forth therein and as independently determined, as a result of which we are satisfied that all rulings, orders, and the judgment of the district court should be, and hereby are, AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
----

Exhibit 99.9

Consent of Independent Registered Chartered Accountants

We consent to the use of our report dated March 12, 2009(except for Note 17 which is as of March 27, 2009) relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements of New Gold Inc. (which report expresses an unqualifiedopinion and includes a separate report, dated March 27, 2009, titled Comments byIndependent Registered Chartered Accountants on Canada-United States of AmericaReporting Difference relating to changes in accounting principles) and ourreport dated March 27, 2009 relating to the effectiveness of New Gold Inc.'sinternal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report onForm 40-F of New Gold Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

*/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP            *

Deloitte & Touche LLPIndependent Registered Chartered Accountants Vancouver, Canada March 31, 2009 

----
Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-10954 (Summary Calendar)

BOBBY LEE COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus MOORE, Officer, Dallas County Jail, Defendant, and
UNKNOWN NAMED DEFENDANTS DALLAS COUNTY JAIL; V. L. SPARKS, Dallas City Police Detective, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (USDC No. 3:93-CV-63-P)

- - - - - - - - - - April 9, 1996 Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-Appellant Bobby Lee Coleman appeals the district
court’s summary judgment for Defendan t-Appellee V. L. Sparks in Coleman’s civil rights suit. Ev en giving Coleman’s brief liberal construction, we view his arguments as failing to raise any challenge to the dismissal of the suit as to the unserved and2

unidentified defendants. Thus, any such challenge is deemed abandoned on appeal. S ee Eas on v. Thaler , 14 F.3d 8, 9 n.1 (5th Cir. 1994). Coleman’s arguments challenge the district court’s conclusion that he faile d to allege specifically such violations of his constitutional rights that would overcome Spa rks’ entitlement to qualified immunity. We have carefully reviewed the record and the appellate arg uments; and we detect no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. S ee Coleman v. Sparks , No. 3:CV-93-0063-P(N.D. Tex. July 5, 1995).
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
     The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Aircraft
Income Partners L.P. and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>      1


<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                            3,866,848
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          0
<PP&E>                                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    3,866,848
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     0
<BONDS>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                        3,801,950
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      3,866,848
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    140,544
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      8,490
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (102,539)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (102,539)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (102,539)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (.24)



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65222-65223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31141]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-39,224]


Centis, Inc.; Formerly Known as 20th Century Plastics; Brea, CA; 
Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistant on August 20, 2001, applicable to 
workers of Centis, Inc., Brea, California. The notice was published in 
the Federal Register on September 11, 2001 (66 FR 47243).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of thin sheer transparent plastic page protectors. 
The subject firm originally named 20th Century Plastics was renamed 
Centis, Inc. in January 2000. The State agency reports that some 
workers wages at the subject firm are

[[Page 65223]]

being reported under the Unemployment Insurance (UI) tax account for 
Centis, Inc., formerly known as 20th Century Plastics, Brea, 
California.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to 
properly reflect this matter.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Centis, Inc. who were adversely affected by imports.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-39,224 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Centis Inc., formerly known as 20th Century 
Plastics, Brea, California who became totally or partially separated 
from employment on or after April 25, 2000, through August 20, 2003, 
are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of 
the Trade Act of 1974.


    Signed at Washington, DC this 29th day of November, 2001.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-31141 Filed 12-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M