alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-10-00835- CR
Danny E dw ard Drum m ond, Ap pellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , 26TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 10- 245- K2 6, H ONO RAB LE B ILLY RAY STUB B LEF IELD, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Da

nny Edwar d Drummond seeks to a ppeal a judgme nt of conviction for robber y . Pursuant to a plea barg ain, he was sentenc ed as a habitual offe nder to thirty-five year s in prison with cre dit for fifty -two day s time serve d. An appea l by a defe ndant in a criminal case must be dismiss ed unless the rec ord contains a cer tification that the defe ndan t has the rig ht of appea l. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The trial court has cer tif i ed t h at : (1 ) this is a plea barg ain case and Drummond has no rig ht of appea l, and (2) Drummond waived the rig ht o f ap peal. The appea l is dismiss ed. SeeTex. R. App. P . 25.2(a) (2), ( d).

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore Justices Puryear , Pemberton and Rose Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: January

14, 2011 Do Not Publish
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-64-01-SM

Timothy Tremblay

O R D E R

Defendant Tremblay’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document no. 27). Trial has been rescheduled for the November 

2006 trial period. Defendant Tremblay shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

not later than September 27, 2006. On the filing of such waiver, his

continuance shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Change of Plea Hearing: October 24, 2006 at 3:00 p.m.

Jury Selection, if necessary: November 7, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

SO ORDERED.

Case 1:05-cr-00064-SM Document 28 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 2
2

___________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

September 22, 2006

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Mark Irish, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00064-SM Document 28 Filed 09/22/06 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6614
In Re: JOSE JUAN RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-900-2) Submitted: July 8, 2003 Decided: July 24, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Juan Rodriguez, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jose Juan Rodriguez petitions for a writ of mandamus. He seeks an order to compel the district court to grant a certificate of appealability or to explain its reasons for failing to do so. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. SeeIn re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re United Steelworkers , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). We grant Rodriguez leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but deny the petition for writ of mandamus, as Rodriquez is not entitled to the relief sought. 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.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32.a



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of DataJungle Software Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended September 30, 2004 (the Form 10-QSB) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-QSB.



|Dated: November 12, 2004 |  | /s/Edward Munden
Edward Munden
President & Chief Executive Officer
|------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-QSB pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-03-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-03-1997
<CASH>                                       2,454,931
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,531,213
<ALLOWANCES>                                   960,120
<INVENTORY>                                  7,332,835
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,280,250
<PP&E>                                     115,633,919
<DEPRECIATION>                              57,838,211
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             151,586,375
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       60,269,844
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,561,406
<OTHER-SE>                                  34,830,149
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               151,586,375
<SALES>                                    105,828,639
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           105,828,639
<CGS>                                       84,760,825
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               84,760,825
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,270,496
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,934,550)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (938,256)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (996,294)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (996,294)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1


   FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE ARCHSTONE-SMITH TRUST 2001 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

         2.4  Payment of Option Exercise Price. The payment of the Exercise
Price of an Option granted under this Section 2 shall be subject to the
following:

(a)      Subject to the following provisions of this subsection 2.4, the full
         Exercise Price for Shares purchased upon the exercise of any Option
         shall be paid at the time of such exercise (except that, in the case of
         an exercise arrangement approved by the Committee and described in
         paragraph 2.4(c), payment may be made as soon as practicable after the
         exercise).

(b)      The Exercise Price shall be payable in cash, or by tendering, by either
         actual delivery of Shares or by attestation, Shares acceptable to the
         Committee, and valued at Fair Market Value as of the day of exercise,
         or in any combination thereof, as determined by the Committee.

(c)      The Committee may permit a Participant to elect to pay the Exercise
         Price upon the exercise of an Option by irrevocably authorizing a third
         party to sell Shares (or a sufficient portion of the Shares) acquired
         upon exercise of the Option and remit to the Company a sufficient
         portion of the sale proceeds to pay the entire Exercise Price and any
         tax withholding resulting from such exercise.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JERONE ANDRE MOORE,

Petitioner

v.

LUZERNE COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, 

LUZERNE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE 

OFFICE, HON. DAVID W. LUPAS,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 145 MM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of November, 2020, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the “Petition for Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition” is 

DENIED. The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.23

             PLAN PARTICIPANTS OF THE DURA AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC.
                          CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENTS


Participant name:

  David R. Bovee
  Lawrence A. Denton
  John J. Knappenberger
  Milton D. Kniss
  Alfred C. Liddell
  Keith R. Marchiando
  Theresa L. Skotak
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William J. Pandolfi,

Plaintiff

v. Civil No. 05-cv-165-SM

Ashbelt T. Wall, Director of the

RI Adult Correctional Facility,

Defendant

O R D E R

Petitioner has been given a number of “second chances” by

the Magistrate Judge to either meet the exhaustion requirement

with respect to all of his federal habeas claims or to elect to

proceed only on his exhausted claims, understanding that his

unexhausted claims may well be lost. Petitioner has obvious

difficulty in addressing these issues squarely, and his pleadings

are not quite responsive, and always difficult to decipher.

The Magistrate Judge has now recommended that the petition

be dismissed as a mixed petition of exhausted and unexhausted

claims. Report and Recommendation (document no. 24). Petitioner

objects, claiming that he actually did elect to proceed only on

his exhausted claims in a timely response to the Magistrate

Judge’s earlier order requiring him to either demonstrate

Case 1:05-cv-00165-SM Document 28 Filed 06/14/07 Page 1 of 3
2

exhaustion (petitioner having by then been given more than ample

time to do so, and petitioner having moved to reopen this stayed

case after having supposedly done so) or elect to proceed only on

the exhausted claims.

Plaintiff wrote, in response to the Magistrate Judge’s

directive:

“10. That if this filing doesn’t satisfy the

exhaustion question, then with respect I request you

give the transcripts disclosed within carefull (sic)

consideration.” (document no. 23)

Petitioner now says, in his latest objection (document no. 25),

that he meant to write:

“10. That if this filing doesn’t satisfy the

exhaustion question in the 3 remaining claims, and the

transcriptions from the hearing appealed from doesn’t

satisfy exhaustion, then with a noted objection I

feeling extorted to do so withdraw the three

“unexhausted” claims,”

and he attaches what he says is a copy of his handwritten “draft”

of the typed response actually filed.

Taking petitioner at his word, and stretching a willingness

to suspend disbelief to its limit, the court will permit

Case 1:05-cv-00165-SM Document 28 Filed 06/14/07 Page 2 of 3
3

petitioner to proceed on the seven exhausted claims rather than

dismiss the petition as a mixed one.

The amended petition and Magistrate Judge’s prior orders and

reports, as well as this order will be served upon the Attorney

General of New Hampshire and an answer or other response filed as

required.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

June 14, 2007

cc: William J. Pandolfi, pro se

Attorney General, State of NH

Case 1:05-cv-00165-SM Document 28 Filed 06/14/07 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 05-cr-149-01-SM

Thomas Brewster

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 6) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the February 2006 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver

of Speedy Trial Rights not later than November 2, 2005. On the filing of such waiver, his

continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account the

Case 1:05-cr-00149-SM Document 7 Filed 10/24/05 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: January 27, 2006 at 4:15 PM

Jury Selection: February 7, 2006 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

October 24, 2005 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Arnold Huftalen, Esq.

 Philip Desfosses, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00149-SM Document 7 Filed 10/24/05 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William J. Carey

v. Civil No. 05-cv-010-SM

Kristi Eglody

O R D E R

 Defendant served a First Request to Admit Facts or

Genuineness of Documents pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 on August

22, 2005. Well within the thirty days provided by the rule

plaintiff objected. Rule 36 provides that “(t)he party who has

requested the admissions may move to determine the sufficiency of

the . . . objections.” Defendant has now moved for such a

determination. Document no. 55. 

Plaintiff has objected to all requests for admission on the

basis that these facts were determined in his favor in a not guilty

criminal determination. He claims that collateral estoppel or res

judicata apply. Neither applies. The prior action was a criminal

action to which defendant was not a party. 

The motion (document no. 55) is granted. The objection is

without merit and appears to be part of plaintiff’s ongoing

harassment. Plaintiff has made no effort to respond to each

Case 1:05-cv-00010-SM Document 58 Filed 02/02/06 Page 1 of 2
2

request in a meaningful candid way and simply filed a meritless

objection. The requests are deemed admitted. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: February 2, 2006

cc: William J. Carey, pro se

 Corey M. Belobrow, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00010-SM Document 58 Filed 02/02/06 Page 2 of 2
Floresville Independent 

School District, City of 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 9, 2015

No. 04-15-00437-CV

Larry A. VICK and Linda H. Vick,

Appellants

v.

FLORESVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, City of Floresville, Wilson County, 

Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, Rashay K. Chapa, Wilson County Appraisal District,

Appellees

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-08-0504-CVW-A

Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The reporter’s record was originally due to be filed in this appeal on August 31, 2015. 

On September 4, 2015, this court sent the court reporter responsible for preparing the record, Ms. 

Leticia Escamilla, notice that the record was late. Ms. Escamilla was instructed to file a 

notification of late record if payment was an issue. Otherwise, Ms. Escamilla was instructed to 

file the reporter’s record by October 5, 2015. The reporter’s record has not been filed.

It is therefore ORDERED that Ms. Leticia Escamilla file the reporter’s record in this 

court no later than October 29, 2015. If the record is not filed by that date, an order may be 

issued directing Ms. Escamilla to appear and show cause why she should not be held in contempt 

for failing to file the record. The clerk of this court shall cause a copy of this order to be served 

on Ms. Escamilla by certified mail, return receipt requested, or give other personal notice of this 

order with proof of delivery. Because “[t]he trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for 

ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed,” TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c), the clerk of the court 

is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge of the 218th

Judicial District Court.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 9th day of October, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Order entered April 13, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 00344
- CV DIANA FAY BASS, Appellant

V. RICHARD H. BASS, Appellee On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Caus e No. 401
- 54722
- 2015



### O RDER Before this Court is appellant’ s April 6, 2016 motion requesting this Court to grant a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction. We DENY appellant’s motion.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BEAU PARRY, Individually and as Next 

Friend to his Minor Daughters,

Appellant,

v.

JASON A. SHAFFER, VANEZA R. 

SHAFFER, and TEAM TUTTLE, INC. 

d/b/a LEGACY REAL ESTATE 

SERVICES, 

Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-21-00094-CV

Appeal from the

120th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#2019DCV1811)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellees

recover from Appellant and its sureties, if any, all costs of appeal. See TEX.R.APP.P. 43.5. This 

decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022.

JEFF ALLEY, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

NICHOLAS HEITMAN,

Defendant.

4:23CR3058

ORDER

Defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (Filing No. 

21), because Defendant and defense counsel need additional time to fully review 

the discovery. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set 

forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1) Defendant’s motion to continue, (Filing No. 25), is granted.

2) Pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before October 3,

2023.

3) The conference call previously scheduled to be held on August 23,

2023, is continued. A telephonic conference with counsel will be held

before the undersigned magistrate judge at 9:45 a.m. on October 10,

2023 to discuss setting any pretrial motion hearing needed, a

change of plea hearing, or the date of the jury trial and deadlines for

disclosing experts as required under Rule 16. Counsel for all parties

shall use the conferencing instructions provided by the court to

participate in the call.

4) The ends of justice served by granting the motion to continue

outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy

trial, and the additional time arising as a result of the granting of the

motion, the time between today’s date and October 10, 2023 shall

be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the

4:23-cr-03058-JMG-CRZ Doc # 26 Filed: 08/14/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 61
requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because although counsel 

have been duly diligent, additional time is needed to adequately 

prepare this case for trial and failing to grant additional time might 

result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1) & (h)(7). 

Failing to timely object to this order as provided under this court’s 

local rules will be deemed a waiver of any right to later claim the time 

should not have been excluded under the Speedy Trial Act.

Dated this 14th day of August, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cr-03058-JMG-CRZ Doc # 26 Filed: 08/14/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 62
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT 03/31/98 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE 3 MONTHS ENDED 03/31/98 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,376
<SECURITIES>                                    22,336
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,833
<ALLOWANCES>                                       966
<INVENTORY>                                     11,834
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,674
<PP&E>                                          17,362
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,357
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,219
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,781
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            38
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,740
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,219
<SALES>                                         20,035
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,035
<CGS>                                           13,484
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,360
<INCOME-TAX>                                       721
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,567
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,567
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:05-cv-00256-SM Document 14 Filed 05/11/06 Page 1 of 13Case 1:05-cv-00256-SM Document 14 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 13Case 1:05-cv-00256-SM Document 14 Filed 05/11/06 Page 3 of 13Case 1:05-cv-00256-SM Document 14 Filed 05/11/06 Page 4 of 13Case 1:05-cv-00256-SM Document 14 Filed 05/11/06 Page 5 of 13Case 1:05-cv-00256-SM Document 14 Filed 05/11/06 Page 6 of 13Case 1:05-cv-00256-SM Document 14 Filed 05/11/06 Page 7 of 13Case 1:05-cv-00256-SM Document 14 Filed 05/11/06 Page 8 of 13Case 1:05-cv-00256-SM Document 14 Filed 05/11/06 Page 9 of 13Case 1:05-cv-00256-SM Document 14 Filed 05/11/06 Page 10 of 13Case 1:05-cv-00256-SM Document 14 Filed 05/11/06 Page 11 of 13Case 1:05-cv-00256-SM Document 14 Filed 05/11/06 Page 12 of 13Case 1:05-cv-00256-SM Document 14 Filed 05/11/06 Page 13 of 13