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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

William J . Pandolfi

V .

RI Adult Correctional

Facilitv, Director

Case No . 05-cv-165-S M

ORDER

Re : Document No . 51, Appeal to District Judge From

Magistrate Order

Ruling : Denied . Both petitioner's motion for ex parte filings

(Docket No . 37) and his objection to the Magistrate Judge's

ruling denying it, are particularly difficult to understand .

Obviously some motions are appropriately filed ex parte, and others

are not . To the extent petitioner seeks blanket permission to file

motions ex parte (which is the construction I put on his

pleadings), it is necessarily denied .

Date : October 25, 200 7

cc : William Pandolfi, pro se

Susan McGinnis, Esq .

Case 1:05-cv-00165-SM Document 57 Filed 10/25/07 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 177 (Thursday, September 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21102]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employee Benefits Security Administration


Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans; 
Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 512 of the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, the 
Working Groups assigned by the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and 
Pension Benefit Plans to study the issues of (1) The spend down of 
retirement assets, (2) hard to value assets/target date funds, and (3) 
phased retirement, will hold a public teleconference meeting on 
September 29, 2008.
    Members of the public wishing to listen to the teleconference may 
attend in Room C5515-B, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The purpose of the open meeting is for 
each Working Group to discuss its draft report with the full Advisory 
Council with respect to its recommendations to the Secretary of Labor. 
The meeting will run from 10 a.m. to approximately 4 p.m., in the order 
listed above for the Working Groups. All recommendations are subject to 
discussion and approval by the full Advisory Council at its meeting on 
November 5-6.
    Organizations or members of the public wishing to submit a written 
statement pertaining to the topic may do so by submitting 25 copies on 
or before September 22, 2008 to Larry Good, Executive Secretary, ERISA 
Advisory Council, U.S. Department of Labor, Suite N-5623, 200 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Statements also may be 
submitted electronically to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#afc8c0c0cb81c3ceddddd6efcbc0c381c8c0d9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="583f37373c7634392a2a21183c3734763f372e">[email protected]</span></a>. Statements received on 
or before September 22 will be included in the record of the meeting. 
Individuals or representatives of organizations wishing to address one 
or more of the Working Groups should forward their requests to the 
Executive Secretary or telephone (202) 693-8668. Oral presentations 
will be limited to 10 minutes, time permitting, but an extended 
statement may be submitted for the record. Individuals with 
disabilities who need special accommodations should contact Larry Good 
by September 22 at the address indicated.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 5th day of September, 2008.
Bradford P. Campbell,
Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-21102 Filed 9-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Robert T. Bevill

v. 04-cv-406-SM

Sprint Communications Company, L.P.

ORDER

Re: Document No. 37, Motion for Sanctions 

Ruling: Plaintiff is pro se, and, although somewhat

litigious, cannot reasonably be held to counsel’s level of

sophistication regarding proper grounds upon which to invoke Rule

60 relief. Indeed, a simple and short objection by defendant

would have sufficed. Putting aside the misnomer regarding the

defendant’s identity, still, even if a sanction would be

warranted, it would not likely be of such seriousness as to call

for even further engagement by defendants. The motion is denied.

This case is closed and plaintiff shall not file additional

pleadings in this case without first filing a motion for leave to

file, in which he shall set forth a short and concise statement of

the type of pleading he wishes to file, the nature of the relief to

be sought, and the legal grounds upon which he believes the relief

sought is attainable. The court will review such motion and rule

on whether it may be filed, thereby sparing defendant any further

need to respond to motions that are insufficiently supported or

legally unsupportable.

Date: October 2, 2006 ___________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Robert Bevill, pro se

R. Matthew Cairns, Esq. 

Case 1:04-cv-00406-SM Document 42 Filed 10/02/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William J. Carey

v. Civil No. 05-cv-293-JD

Steven Olson, et al.

O R D E R

On April 13, 2006, the court ordered service on defendant

Peter Bartlett, while a motion for judgment on the pleadings

filed by the other two defendants was pending. The next day,

Bartlett filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, contending

simply that the arguments made by the other two defendants were

equally applicable to him. On April 21, 2006, the court granted

the first motion for judgment on the pleadings as to defendant

Steven Olson and as to that part of the plaintiff’s claim against

defendant Michael Boufford that was based on New Hampshire case

number 03-S-1078. Because the plaintiff’s claim against Boufford

also arose out of a separate case or cases, part of the motion

for judgment on the pleadings was denied. 

Given the mixed outcome on the first motion for judgment on

the pleadings, defendant Bartlett cannot rely on that motion to

seek judgment on the pleadings in his favor. As the court

directed in the previous order, the issues raised in both motions

for judgment on the pleadings would be more appropriately

addressed in a properly supported motion for summary judgment.

Case 1:05-cv-00293-JD Document 23 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 2
2

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion for

judgment on the pleadings (document no. 20) is denied without

prejudice to file a properly supported motion for summary

judgment.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

May 2, 2006

cc: William J. Carey, pro se

Robert J. Meagher, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00293-JD Document 23 Filed 05/02/06 Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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 9, 2016

a0906

Order 

Clerk

September 9, 2016

154140 & (4)

In re ANONYMOUS JUDGE

SC: 154140

JTC Grievance Nos. 

2015-21594; 2016-22079

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL TENURE COMMISSION

____________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the parties having stipulated to the withdrawal of the 

petition for interim suspension, the petition is DISMISSED. The motion to seal file is 

GRANTED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2538

ELLIS TALEU, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND; PRINCE

GEORGE'S COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; ROBERT P.

FOX, Officer #1545; BENNIE SKIBICKI, Officer

#1707,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA94-462-PJM)

Submitted: February 28, 1997 Decided: April 3, 1997

Before ERVIN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ellis Taleu, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jay Heyward Creech, Assistant

State's Attorney, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ellis Taleu, Jr., appeals the district court's order granting

summary judgment to the Defendants in his civil rights action. The

record does not contain a transcript of the July 10, 1995, summary

judgment proceedings or oral opinion and order. Appellant has the

burden of including in the record on appeal a transcript of all

parts of the proceedings material to the issues raised on appeal.

Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. Local R. 10(c). By failing to produce a transcript or to qualify for the production of a transcript

at government expense, Appellant has waived review of the issues on

appeal which depend upon the transcript to show error. See Powell

v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1025

(1992); Keller v. Prince George's Co., 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th

Cir. 1987). We have reviewed the record before the court and find

no reversible error. We therefore affirm the district court's

order. 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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lashasta KNIGHTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-41798.

Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Counsel appointed to represent Lashasta Knighton has requested leave to withdraw as counsel and has filed a brief as required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the brief, record, and Knighton’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, Knighton’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. Knighton may raise her ineffective assistance claims in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. *See United, States v. Navejar,*963 F.2d 732, 735 (5th Cir.1992).

*

 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.
Case 1:05-cr-00207-SM Document 16 Filed 02/09/06 Page 1 of 4Case 1:05-cr-00207-SM Document 16 Filed 02/09/06 Page 2 of 4Case 1:05-cr-00207-SM Document 16 Filed 02/09/06 Page 3 of 4Case 1:05-cr-00207-SM Document 16 Filed 02/09/06 Page 4 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-101-01-PB

Kevin Corson

O R D E R

On October 24, 2011, defendant appeared for a preliminary 

hearing under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(1), and bail hearing 

under 32.1(a)(6), on seven alleged violations of conditions of 

supervision, as charged in the government's petition dated 

October 20, 2011 (doc. no. 44). Defendant is on release from 

his conviction in 2006 for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a 

Convicted Felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

The government alleges that, while on supervised release, 

defendant violated numerous conditions of release including 

violating his curfew, travelling outside the judicial district 

without probation officer’s permission, consuming alcohol, and 

committing two separate criminal offenses. The defendant waived 

the preliminary hearing, thereby conceding that the government’s 

evidence was sufficient to establish probable cause that he had 

violated the conditions as charged in the petition. 

Case 1:05-cr-00101-PB Document 49 Filed 10/24/11 Page 1 of 3
2

Defendant argued that he should be released pending his 

revocation hearing. The government sought detention. Under 

Rule 32.1(a)(6), defendant bears the burden of establishing by 

clear and convincing evidence that he will not flee and that he 

poses no danger to any other person or to the community. The 

court issued its ruling orally from the bench. The court 

incorporates its oral ruling herein, and for the reasons stated 

on the record, finds that defendant did not meet his burden to 

show by clear and convincing evidence that his release, even on 

strict conditions, would pose no danger to any other person or 

the community. In short, there are no conditions or combination 

of conditions that will reasonably assure the safety of the 

community. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be 

detained pending a final revocation hearing. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney 

General or his designated representative for confinement in a 

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from 

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody 

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable 

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On 

order of a court of the United States or on request of an 

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the 

Case 1:05-cr-00101-PB Document 49 Filed 10/24/11 Page 2 of 3
3

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United 

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection 

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

 

Landya B. McCafferty

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 24, 2011

cc: Sven D. Wiberg, Esq.

William E. Morse, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:05-cr-00101-PB Document 49 Filed 10/24/11 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 178 (Friday, September 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53067-53068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21265]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11426]


New Hampshire Disaster <greek-i>NH-00007

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

[[Page 53068]]

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New Hampshire 
(FEMA-1787-DR), dated 09/05/2008.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 07/24/2008 through 08/14/2008.
    Effective Date: 09/05/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/04/2008.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/05/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 09/05/2008, private non-
profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties:
    Belknap, Coos, Grafton.
Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):
    New Hampshire: Carroll, Merrimack, Rockingham, Strafford, Sullivan.
    Maine: Oxford.
    Vermont: Caledonia, Essex, Orange, Windsor.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit             5.250
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit            4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage and for
  economic injury is 11426.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-21265 Filed 9-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
EXHIBIT 21.1

WESTWAY GROUP, INC.

SUBSIDIARIES



|                                             |  |                                             
|-------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                           |  | Jurisdiction ofIncorporation or Organization
|                                             | 
|Westway Terminal Company LLC                 |  | Delaware                                    
|Westway Terminal Cincinnati LLC              |  | Delaware                                    
|Westway Feed Products LLC                    |  | Delaware                                    
|Sunnyside Feed LLC                           |  | Delaware                                    
|Westway International Holdings, Inc.         |  | Delaware                                    
|Westway Holdings International, LLC          |  | Delaware                                    
|Westway Netherlands Coöperatief U.A.         |  | Netherlands                                 
|Westway Holdings Netherlands B.V.            |  | Netherlands                                 
|Westway Terminals Nederland B.V.             |  | Netherlands                                 
|Westway Holdings Korea Limited               |  | Republic of Korea                           
|Westway Terminals Korea Ltd                  |  | Republic of Korea                           
|Westway Holdings Denmark ApS                 |  | Denmark                                     
|Westway Terminals Esbjerg ApS                |  | Denmark                                     
|Westway Holdings Australia Pty Limited       |  | Victoria, Australia                         
|Westway (Australia) Pty Limited              |  | New South Wales, Australia                  
|Champion Liquid Feeds Pty Limited            |  | New South Wales, Australia                  
|Westway Holdings UK Limited                  |  | England & Wales, U.K.                       
|Westway Terminals UK Ltd                     |  | England & Wales, U.K.                       
|Westway Holdings Poland sp. z o.o.           |  | Poland                                      
|Westway Terminals Poland sp. z o.o.          |  | Poland                                      
|Westway Hibernian Holdings Limited           |  | Republic of Ireland                         
|Westway Terminals Hibernian Limited          |  | Republic of Ireland                         
|Westway Terminal & Feed Products Canada Inc. |  | Alberta, Canada
#### Joseph Chavoustie et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Stone Street Baptist Church of Chaumont et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Case held, decision reserved, and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: This is an appeal from a judgment of the trial court which sustained plaintiffs’ causes of action to the extent that they sought to compel the removal of a chain-link fence erected by defendants allegedly on plaintiffs’ property, sought a declaration that plaintiffs acquired title by adverse possession to property on which plaintiffs’ pool and garage encroached, and sought to recover damages. The trial court’s written decision outlines the trial proof, but fails to set forth the ultimate facts that it found to support its conclusions *(see,*CPLR 4213 [b]). Under the circumstances, the proper course is to remit for findings of fact *(Mastin v Village of Lima,*77 AD2d 786; *Nutone Inc. v Bouley Co.,*38 AD2d 670). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J.—adverse possession.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
' J.

ineligible for probation, and contradicted Martinez's contention. Counsel for Martinez conceded that the record contradicted the claim, but suggested that Martinez's history as a boxer may have contributed to memory impairment which impacted his ability to understand the proceedings. The district court judge, who had conducted the plea canvass and therefore had an opportunity to observe whether Martinez understood the agreement, rejected his assertion and concluded that the plea was knowingly and intelligently entered. Martinez fails to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion. See Riker v. State, 111 Nev. 1316, 1322, 905 P.2d 706, 710 (1995) ("On appeal from a district court's denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, this court 'will presume that the lower court correctly assessed the validity of the plea, and we will not reverse the lower court's determination absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion." (quoting Bryant v. State, 102 Nev. 268, 272, 721 P.2d 364, 368 (1986))). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge Nguyen & Lay Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2
10) 1947A , 441411 ,
**
**Exhibit 35.1**

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2018-3 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify andrepresent that: 

 
 1.
A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as ofJune 27, 2018, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2018-3 and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the “Agreement”)during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision. 

 
 2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theAgreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report. 

 
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By: 
/s/ Marc Womack
Name: Marc WomackTitle: EVP, Head of OperationsDate: March 31, 2022By: 
/s/ Erik Laney
Name: Erik LaneyTitle: TreasurerDate: March 31, 2022**