alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
109 A.3d 215

#### IN THE MATTER OF BRUCE M. RESNICK, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 019431984).

February 27, 2015.

ORDER

This matter have been duly presented pursuant to *Rule*1:20-10(b), following a granting of a motion for discipline by consent in *580DRB 14-381 of BRUCE M. RESNICK of CHERRY HILL, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1985;

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*1.3 (lack of diligence), *RPC*1.4(b) (failure to communicate with client), *RPC*1.5(b) (failure to memorialize the rate or basis of the fee), *RPC*1.15(b) (failure to promptly disburse funds to the party entitled to receive them), *RPC*1.15(d) and *Rule*1:21-6 (recordkeeping violations);

And the parties having agreed that respondent’s conduct violated *RPC*1.3, *RPC*1.4(b), *RPC*1.5(b), *RPC*1.15(b), *RPC*1.15(d) and *Rule*1:21-6, and that said conduct warrants a reprimand 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 Nos. XIV-2014-0528E and XIV-2014-0529E;

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*1:20-16(e);

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that BRUCE M. RESNICK of CHERRY HILL is hereby reprimanded;

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.
#### Board of Education of the Columbus City School District et al., Appellees, *v.*Franklin County Board of Revision et al., Appellees; Cougill, Appellant.

[Cite as *Columbus City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision,*118 Ohio St.3d 262, 2008-Ohio-2449.]

*263(No. 2007-1086

Submitted March 25, 2008

Decided May 28, 2008.)

Rich, Crites & Dittmer, L.L.C., Mark H. Gillis, and Jeffrey A. Rich, for appellees Columbus City School District Board of Education and South-Western City School District Board of Education.

Siegel, Siegel, Johnson & Jennings Co., L.P.A., Nicholas M.J. Ray, and Jay P. Siegel, for appellant.

{¶ 1} The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed on the authority of *Berea City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision,*106 Ohio St.3d 269, 2005-Ohio-4979, 834 N.E.2d 782, and *Rhodes v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision,*117 Ohio St.3d 532, 2008-Ohio-1595, 885 N.E.2d 236.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
-  Home 

## Related Links

                  -                                          Press Release: U.S. Department of Transportation Launches "Protect Your Move" C...                   

# Resources for Consumers

## Protect Your Move!

Protect Your Move!

## Look Before You Book!

Look Before You Book!

## File a Consumer Complaint Against a Bus or Carrier

File a Consumer Complaint Against a Bus or Carrier

## Find Bus & Motor Coach Safety Information

Find Bus & Motor Coach Safety Information

## Americans with Disabilities Act Guidelines for Motorcoaches

Americans with Disabilities Act Guidelines for Motorcoaches

**Most Requested Pages**
                        - Look Before You Book! Bus Safety
                        - Protect Your Move
                        - Find Bus & Motor Coach Safety Information
                        - File a Complaint Against a Moving Company
                        - Learn About Credit Card and Debit Refunds for Moving Companies
                        - File a Consumer Complaint Against a Bus or Carrier
                        - Americans With Disabilities Act Guidelines for Motorcoach Carriers
                        - Frequently Asked Questions
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 Secured Income L.P. (the "Registrant")
on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard Paul
Richman, Chief Executive Officer of Wilder Richman Resources Corporation, a
general partner of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as
adopted pursuant to (S) 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 Registrant.



/s/ Richard Paul Richman
------------------------------------------------
Richard Paul Richman
Chief Executive Officer of Wilder Richman
Resources Corporation, a general partner of
the Registrant
March 31, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           2,644
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,074
<ALLOWANCES>                                       225
<INVENTORY>                                      4,320
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,813
<PP&E>                                           7,312
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,091
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,469
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,949
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           312
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,074
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,469
<SALES>                                         15,485
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,485
<CGS>                                            9,323
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,323
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,053
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,134
<INCOME-TAX>                                       714
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,420
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,420
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .45


</TABLE>
|                                  |  |                           
|--------------------------------- |  | --------------------------
|Information Analysis Incorporated |  | 2006 Report on Form 10-KSB



Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Form SB-2 No. 333-95775, dated September 4, 2000 and Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-26249, No. 33-305136 and No. 33-138836) pertaining to the 1986 Stock Option Plan, the 1996 Stock Option Plan and the
2006 Stock Incentive Plan of Information Analysis Incorporated and in the related prospectus of our report dated March 28, 2007 with respect to the 2006 and 2005 financial statements of Information Analysis Incorporated included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-KSB).



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Reznick Group, P.C.
|                       
|Vienna, Virginia       
|March 28, 2007
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A) UNDER THE SECURITIES 

EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

I, D. Jonathan Merriman, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MCF Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact 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 presentin 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 definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) 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 consolidatedsubsidiaries, 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 theeffectiveness 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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent 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;

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation ofinternal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 9, 2004
NUMBER 13-07-476-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

ROBERT GAVLIK, Appellant,

v.

RAYMOND BYRD, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 214th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Benavides, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Robert Gavlik, and appellee, Raymond Byrd, have filed a joint motion for

dismissal of this appeal. According to the joint motion, the parties have mutually resolved

all matters in controversy between them and have agreed that this cause should be

dismissed with prejudice.
2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and the joint motion to dismiss

the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(a). The joint motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

By agreement of the parties, costs will be taxed against the party incurring same. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the

appellant."). 

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 19th day of June, 2008.
1

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W., SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, DC 20004-1710

 

BEFORE: Jordan, Chair; Althen, Rajkovich, and Baker, Commissioners

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION: 

This case arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 801 

et seq. (2018) (“Mine Act”). On July 7, 2023, the Administrative Law Judge assigned to this 

matter issued an order granting certification of questions for interlocutory review. 

Pursuant to Commission Procedural Rule 76, 29 C.F.R. § 2700.76, the Commission may 

review a Judge’s ruling, prior to the Judge’s final decision in the case, if certain conditions are 

met. This includes a Judge certifying that his interlocutory ruling involves a controlling question 

of law and that immediate review will materially advance the final disposition of the proceeding. 

We find that the qualifications contained in Procedural Rule 76, 29 C.F.R. § 2700.76,

have been met, and hereby GRANT interlocutory review. 

_________________________________

Mary Lu Jordan, Chair

_________________________________ 

William I. Althen, Commissioner 

_________________________________ 

Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr., Commissioner

_________________________________ 

Timothy J. Baker, Commissioner 

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

 MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

 ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) 

v.

CONSOL MINING COMPANY LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEVA 2023-0141

July 27, 2023
2

Distribution:

Emily Toler Scott

Counsel for Appellate Litigation

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of the Solicitor

Division of Mine Safety & Health

201 12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202

scott.emily.t@dol.gov

Robert S. Wilson

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor, MSHA

201 12th Street, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202

wilson.robert.s@dol.gov

D. Cass Trent, CLR

U.S. Department of Labor, MSHA

4499 Appalachian Hwy

Pineville, WV 24874

trent.david@dol.gov

Jim McHugh

Hardy Pence LLC

10 Hale Street, 4th Floor

P.O. Box 2548

Charleston, WV 25329

jmchugh@hardypence.com

Craig Aaron

CONSOL Energy Inc.

275 Technolgy Drive, Suite 101

Canonsburg, PA 15317

craigaaron@consolenergy.com

Michael G. Young

Administrative Law Judge

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge

1331 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 520N

Washington, DC 20004

myoung@fmshrc.gov
**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 Annual Report of Lithium Technology Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Ralf Tolksdorf, 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) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Dated: April 14, 2004
Opinion issued June 11, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00484-CV

———————————

IN RE RETAKA ROMEO NELSON, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On June 10, 2013, the relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus,

challenging the trial court’s order striking his jury demand.

*

 He also filed a 

emergency motion for temporary relief. The relator did not provide a record of the 

 * The underlying case is In the Matter of the Marriage of Retaka Romeo 

Nelson and Shannon Brochette Nelson, No. 2012-04063, in the 308th

District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable James Lombardino

presiding.
2

ruling of which he complains. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A); Walker v. 

Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (the relator has the burden to provide the 

court with a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief). We deny 

the emergency motion and the petition for writ of mandamus. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Sharp, Massengale, and Huddle.
Addendum to Term Sheet



 Exhibit 10.3 
 ADDENDUM 
 THIS ADDENDUM (this
“Addendum”) is made as of the 21st day of August, 2007 (the “Effective Date”), by and among ER Urgent Care Centers
(hereinafter referred to the “Corporation”) and Paragon Trading Ltd. (“‘Paragon”), (collectively, the “Parties”). 
 WHEREAS, the Parties wish to append this Addendum to that certain Term Sheet between the parties, dated August 21, 2007 (the “Agreement”). 
 THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns agree as follows: 
 1. It is hereby agree by the Parties, that the Agreement be modified to include the following: 
 FLOOR PRICE. The Company may, at its option, specify in each Put Notice a minimum Market Price (“Floor Price”). In the event that during a Valuation Period,
the Bid Price on any Trading Day falls below the Floor Price (a “Low Bid Price”), the Company shall be under no obligation to sell and the Investor shall be under no obligation to purchase one tenth (1/10) of the Investment Amount
specified in the Put Notice for each such Trading Day, and the Investment Amount shall accordingly be deemed reduced by such amount. In the event that during a Valuation Period there exists a Low Bid Price for any three (3) Trading Days - not
necessarily consecutive – then, unless the Company confirms in writing by the close of business on the third such Trading Day of its desire to sell the full Investment Amount by waiving the Floor Price, the balance of each party’s
obligation for the Investment Amount under such Put Notice shall terminate on such third Trading Day (“Termination Day”), and the Investment Amount shall be adjusted to include only one-tenth of the initial Investment Amount for each
Trading Day during the Valuation Period prior to the Termination Day that the Bid Price equals or exceeds the Floor Price. 
 NO STRICT CONSTRUCTION. The
language used in this Agreement will be deemed to be the language chosen by the parties to express their mutual intent, and no rules of strict construction will be applied against any party. 
 COMMITMENT FEE: Upon Signing, the Issuer shall pay to the Purchaser a Commitment Fee of TWO MILLION SHARES of the Issuers restricted common stock based upon a $0.10 bid
price ($200,000) of the issuer common stock on the Signing date. The shares shall have “Piggy-back” and demand registration rights. 
 2. The Parties agree and acknowledge that all terms and conditions of the Agreement not modified herein remain in full force and effect. 
 3. This Addendum may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. 
  

			
	ER Urgent Care Centers	  	Paragon Trading Ltd.

 Page 1 of 1 
 Addendum to Term Sheet
with respect to the annual awards of restricted stock occur on the first, second and thirdanniversaries of the award date, or, if earlier, the day immediately preceding the date of ourannual meeting of stockholders for each such year. An initial award of restricted stock vests onthe first, second and third anniversaries of the award date. Non-employee directors will not vestin any additional shares of restricted stock following his or her cessation of service as a boardmember; provided, however, that if such cessation of board service occurs by reason of his or herdeath or disability, then all outstanding shares of restricted stock immediately vest. Restrictedstock awards also vest in full on an accelerated basis upon the occurrence of certain changes incontrol of Quiksilver, Inc. during the period of board service. As the restricted stock awardsvest, the underlying shares of common stock cease to be subject to any restrictions, other thanapplicable securities laws.Clothing Allowance and Expense Reimbursement          Non-employee directors will continue to receive an annual allowance of up to $2,000 topurchase apparel and other Company products. Directors will also continue to be reimbursed fortravel and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred by them that are incidental to their service asdirectors.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

Cause number: 01

- 1 8

- 0 0 767

- C V

Style: Lawrence Frances Zuntych v. Karen Ann Walding

- Zuntych

Date motion filed * : August 19 , 201 9

Type of motion: Final Motion f o r Exten sion of Time to File Appellee’s Brief

Party filing motion: Pro se a ppellee Karen Ann Walding

- Zuntych

Document to be filed: Appell ee’ s brief

Is appeal accelerated? No.

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: J une 5 , 2019

Number of extensions granted: 2 Current Due D ate: August 19 , 2019

Date Requested: October 7 , 2019 ( 124 days from original deadline)

Ordered that motion is:

☒ Granted , in part

If document is to be filed, document due: September 19 , 2019.

☒ No further extensions of time will be granted.

☐ Denied

☐ Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

☒ Other: _ Because the pro se appellee’s third extension request claims that she has hired

new counsel, Adam Looney, who needs time to catch up on the case and complete the brief,

her request is granted , in part

, until September 19 , 2019, but with no furthe r extensions

to be granted

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(d).

_ The Court directs Adam Looney t o file a

notice of appearance within 10 days of the date of this Order.

_________________

Judge’ s signature:

___

/s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

__________  Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date:

__ August 22, 2019

_____