alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Disciplinary Counsel *v.*Flowers.

[Cite as *Disciplinary Counsel v. Flowers,*139 Ohio St.3d 338, 2014-Ohio-2123.]

(No. 2013-1621

Submitted November 6, 2013

Decided May 28, 2014.)

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Janice Marie Flowers of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0074318, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2001. On May 13, 2013, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Flowers with professional misconduct after Flowers, on two separate occasions and with her client’s permission, signed her client’s name to five affidavits and then improperly notarized the client’s purported signatures on the affidavits.

{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement. *See*BCGD Proc.Reg. 11.

{¶ 3} In the consent-to-discipline agreement, Flowers stipulates to the facts alleged in relator’s complaint and agrees that her conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).

{¶ 4} The parties stipulate that mitigating factors include the absence of a prior disciplinary record and Flowers’s cooperative attitude in the disciplinary proceeding. *See*BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d). The parties agree that there are no aggravating factors. Based upon these factors, the parties stipulate that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction for Flowers’s misconduct.

{¶ 5} The panel and board found that the consent-to-discipline agreement conforms to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11 and recommend that we adopt the agreement in its entirety. In support of this recommendation, the panel and board refer to *Disciplinary Counsel v. Mezacapa,*101 Ohio St.3d 156, 2004-Ohio-302, 803 *339N.E.2d 397 (a public reprimand was the appropriate sanction for an attorney who signed a client’s name on an affidavit with the client’s permission and then notarized the signature as that of the client); *Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Thomas,*93 Ohio St.3d 402, 754 N.E.2d 1263 (2001) (same); *Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Melnick,*107 Ohio St.3d 240, 2005-Ohio-6265, 837 N.E.2d 1203 (a public reprimand was the appropriate sanction for an attorney who notarized signatures on three affidavits even though he had not complied with the jurat representation that the signatures were sworn to and subscribed in his presence). We agree that Flowers violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) and 8.4(h) and, as stated in the parties’ agreement and as indicated by the cited precedent, that this conduct warrants a public reprimand. Therefore, we adopt the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.

Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Donald Scheetz, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

James E. Arnold & Associates, L.P.A., and Alvin E. Mathews Jr., for respondent.

{¶ 6} Accordingly, Flowers is publicly reprimanded. Costs are taxed to Flowers.

Judgment accordingly.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2157

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate work disincentives

for individuals who are blind.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 19, 1993

Mr. COX introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate

work disincentives for individuals who are blind.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Social Security Disabil5 ity Benefits for the Blind Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF DISABILITY.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 223(d)(1)(B) of the So8 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)(B)) is amended to

9 read as follows:
2

•HR 2157 IH

1 ‘‘(B) blindness (within the meaning of section

2 216(i)(1)).’’.

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 223(d)(4)

4 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(4)) is amended—

5 (1) by striking the second sentence and insert6 ing the following: ‘‘No individual who is blind (as de7 fined in section 216(i)(1)) shall be considered failing

8 to meet the requirements for disability by reason of

9 any substantial gainful activity.’’; and

10 (2) in the third sentence, by inserting ‘‘who is

11 disabled other than by reason of blindness (as de12 fined in section 216(i)(1))’’ after ‘‘individual’’.

13 SEC. 3. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR TERMINATION.

14 Section 223(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

15 423(f)) is amended—

16 (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ‘‘in the

17 case of an individual whose disability has been blind18 ness (as defined in section 216(i)(1)), the individual

19 is no longer blind (within the meaning of ‘blindness’

20 as so defined), or, in the case of any other individ21 ual,’’ after ‘‘(A)’’;

22 (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘in the case

23 of an individual whose disability is not ‘blindness’ as

24 defined in section 216(i)(1),’’ after ‘‘(2)’’; and
3

•HR 2157 IH

1 (3) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘in the case

2 of an individual whose disability is not ‘blindness’ as

3 defined in section 216(i)(1),’’ after ‘‘(3)’’.

4 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

5 The amendments made by this Act shall apply only

6 with respect to benefits for months beginning after the

7 date of the enactment of this Act, and, in the case of indi8 viduals who are entitled to neither disability insurance

9 benefits under section 223 of the Social Security Act for

10 the month in which this Act is enacted nor benefits under

11 section 202 of such Act for such month based on disabil12 ity, such amendments shall apply only with respect to ben13 efits for which applications are filed on or after such date.

Æ
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

C ONTINUING O RDER OF A BATEMENT

Appellate case name: Tetra Technologies, Inc. v. David Alleman and Alleman Consulting, LLC

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00 049

- CV

Trial court case number: 20 8 6

- 6 6742

Trial court: 2 68t h District Court of Harris County

On June 13, 2019, appellees, David Alleman and Alleman Consulting, LLC (collectively “appellees”), filed a motion “to abate this appeal pending a trial court determination as to

whethe r this case h a d been rendered moot by a binding compromise settlement agreement.” See Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals , 925 S.W.2d 656, 658

– 59 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding); Tony’s Barbeque and Steakhouse, Inc. v. Three Points Invs., Inc. , 527 S.W.3d 686 , 689 (Tex.

A p p.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.)

. We granted appellees’ motion . Since then, appellees have filed several status reports in this Court, with the most recent being filed on October 29,

2020.

We direct appellees, no later than 90 days fr om the date o f this order , to file another report advising the Court of the status of any trial court proceedings. If appellees do not respond as directed, the case may be reinstated on the Court’s active docket and the appeal may proceed under the applic able Texas Ru l es of Appellate Procedure.

The appeal remains abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active

docket.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

_____ /s/ Julie Countiss

_______  Acting individually Acting for the Cou rt

Date: December 22, 2020
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.3

                  Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Marc J. Lichtman, Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of TechTeam
Global, Inc. (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 year ended December
     31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
     hereof (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/ Marc J. Lichtman
-------------------------------------
Marc J. Lichtman
Vice President and
Chief Accounting Officer

March 18, 2005
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 China Forestry, Inc. (the "Company") for
the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Man Ha, Chief Financial 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
      on the dates and for the periods
presented.








Date:
      March 31, 2009
              By:  /s/Man
      Ha
                Man
      Ha
                Chief
      Financial
Officer
NO. 07-07-00461-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

DECEMBER 21, 2007

______________________________

HAROLD LORIMER, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 137 DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; TH

NO. 2002-439,803; HONORABLE CECIL G. PURYEAR, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Appellant Harold Lorimer filed a notice of appeal from his conviction for aggravated

sexual assault on November 7, 2007. On October 24, 2007, the trial court filed its

certification that appellant has the right of appeal. However, the appellate record reflects

that appellant failed to sign the certification pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

25.2(d) which requires the certification to be signed by appellant and a copy served on him.
2

Consequently, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the 137 District Court th

of Lubbock County (trial court) for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court shall

utilize whatever means it finds necessary to determine whether:

1. Appellant desires to prosecute the appeal; and

2. If so, to obtain his signature on an amended trial court’s certification.

 If necessary, the trial court shall execute findings of fact, conclusions of law, and

any orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues and cause its findings,

conclusions, and orders, if any, to be included in a supplemental clerk’s record. The trial

court shall file the supplemental clerk’s record and the supplemental reporter’s record, if

any, with the Clerk of this Court by January 21, 2008. 

It is so ordered. 

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                          17,311
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,866
<ALLOWANCES>                                       446
<INVENTORY>                                     51,269
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,334
<PP&E>                                          77,231
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,970
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 160,029
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,408
<BONDS>                                         11,718
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           107
<OTHER-SE>                                      88,765
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    88,872
<SALES>                                        384,983
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               384,983
<CGS>                                          269,496
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  269,496
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                99,922
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,087
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,478
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,051
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,478
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,427
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.88


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 25, 2013

s0918

Order 

Clerk

September 25, 2013

146764

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146764

COA: 314588

Macomb CC: 2010-000721-FH

MYRON BANKS, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 7, 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

VIVIANO, J., did not participate because he presided over this case in the circuit 

court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>  5
<CURRENCY> 0
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.00                    1.00
<CASH>                                         125,945                 133,681
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                   2,316
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                       2,539,419               2,981,014
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,673,346               3,134,405
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,673,346               3,134,405
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,673,346               3,134,405
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,151                   6,384
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,757                  19,262
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,606)                (12,878)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (13,606)                (12,878)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (13,606)                (12,878)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 179

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the tax-exempt

status of Christa McAuliffe Fellowships.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. EMERSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend

the tax-exempt status of Christa McAuliffe Fellowships.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That (a) section 117 of the Internal Revenue Code of

4 1986 (relating to qualified scholarships) is amended by

5 adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

6 ‘‘(e) CHRISTA McAULIFFE FELLOWSHIPS.—In the

7 case of an individual who is a Christa McAuliffe Fellow

8 (as defined in section 561(b) of the Higher Education Act

9 of 1965) and is awarded a fellowship pursuant to section
2

•HR 179 IH

1 561 of such Act, gross income shall not include any

2 amount of such fellowship award—

3 ‘‘(1) which is expended for a project approved

4 by the Secretary of Education pursuant to section

5 563(b) of such Act, and

6 ‘‘(2) which is not expended directly or indirectly

7 for the personal use or benefit of such individual.’’

8 (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall

9 apply to amounts received on or after July 1, 1990, in

10 taxable years ending on or after such date.

Æ
exv10w5



 





EXHIBIT 10.5




SECOND FORM OF SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT




     The undersigned Seller and Buyer have entered into this Share Purchase Agreement dated as of
October 18, 2007 for Seller’s sale of shares of common stock of HAPC, Inc. to Buyer.



     1. Seller hereby sells, and Buyer hereby buys, the Shares of Common Stock of HAPC, Inc.
specified below for the Purchase Price specified below effective immediately, such sale to settle
on the Settlement Date specified below.


Number of Shares: ______________



Purchase Price per Share: $______________________



Settlement Date: October ____ , 2007




     2. Seller holds the Shares through


________________________________.

[Identify broker/custodian]




     3. Seller represents and warrants that (a) it has held the Shares since August 6, 2007, the
record date for HAPC, Inc.’s Special Annual Meeting of Stockholders, currently scheduled to be
re-convened on October 19, 2007 and (b) either purchased the Shares in HAPC’s initial public
offering or in an open market purchase. Seller hereby agrees to promptly and timely provide (and,
if applicable, cause the record holder of the Shares to provide) to Buyer a “legal proxy” and all
other documents necessary to enable Buyer to vote the Shares at such meeting or any adjournment
thereof. Seller represents and warrants that it has not transferred the right to vote the Shares
to any other person.



     4. Seller hereby provides Buyer with an irrevocable proxy with respect to the Shares in the
form attached. Seller hereby agrees to promptly and timely vote the Shares in favor of all
recommendations of the Board of HAPC, Inc., and to maintain such vote (and provide evidence thereof
to Buyer), until such time as Buyer is able to submit the irrevocable proxy to HAPC, Inc.



     5. Seller acknowledges that Buyer, as counterparty to a transaction with HAPC, Inc., has
material nonpublic information relating to such transaction. Seller has had the opportunity to ask
any questions and receive answers about such information and Buyer’s purchase of the Shares.
Seller is satisfied by reason of its own knowledge and investigation, and not in reliance on any
express or implied representation of Buyer or any of its other directors, officers, agents or
affiliates as to the sale of the Shares at the price specified herein.



[Signature Page Follows.]




 









 







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth
above.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Seller	 	 	 	Buyer
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	[                             ]	 	 	 	I-Flow Corporation
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	 
	 	 	 	By:
	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	 	 	 	 	Name:
	 

	 	Title:
	 	 	 	 	 	Title: