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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Victor Dahar, Trustee

v. Civil No. 05-cv-186-JD

Susan W. Jackson

O R D E R

The bankrupcy court entered judgment against Susan W.

Jackson and in favor of the bankruptcy trustee, Victor Dahar, in

the amount of $260,130.67 in December of 2004. Following

resolution of her motion to alter or amend judgment, Jackson

filed a notice of appeal in the bankruptcy court. On May 20,

2005, the bankruptcy court denied her motion for a stay of the

judgment pending appeal but granted a stay to give her time to

seek a stay in this court while her appeal is pending. The stay

granted by the bankruptcy court will expire at 5:00 p.m. today. 

On May 31, 2005, Susan W. Jackson filed a notice of appeal

in this court, and today she filed a motion for a stay pending

appeal. Victor Dahar, the bankruptcy trustee, has not had an

opportunity to respond. The court will grant a temporary stay of

the judgment to provide Dahar an opportunity to respond to

Jackson’s motion. The judgment against Jackson entered in the

bankruptcy court is stayed until this court resolves her motion

for a stay pending appeal. Jackson shall file copies of the

Case 1:05-cv-00186-JD Document 5 Filed 06/01/2005 Page 1 of 2

Dahar v. Jackson et al Doc. 5

Dockets.Justia.com
2

bankruptcy court’s orders entering judgment against her and

denying her motion to alter and amend judgment on or before June

6, 2005. Dahar shall file a response to Jackson’s motion for a

stay pending appeal on or before June 15, 2005.

SO ORDERED.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

June 1, 2005

cc: Thomas J. Pappas, Esquire

John R. Michels, Esquire

Richard Thorner, Esquire

USBC-NH, Clerk

Case 1:05-cv-00186-JD Document 5 Filed 06/01/2005 Page 2 of 2
# United Stat es Court of Appeals For the First C ircuit

No. 04-1058 LINDA L. ELLISON, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. DAVID BROCK, CHIEF JUSTICE, NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT, Defendant, Appellee.

ERRATA The judgment of this Court, issued on June 21, 2004, should be amended as follows: On page 4, line 22, delete the bracket after " supported ". On page 6, line 2, replace " motion to dismiss " with " motion for reconsideration ". On page 6, line 7, replace " judgement " with " judgment ".
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Patrick Walsh

v. Civil No. 05-cv-188-JD

Concord Police Department, et al

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objections filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated December 6, 2005, for the

reasons stated therein.

SO ORDERED.

January 11, 2006 /s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: Patrick Walsh, pro se

Michael Ricker, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00188-JD Document 13 Filed 01/11/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CURRENCY>                    US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                         1
<CASH>                                          5,763,000
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,647,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                1,080,000
<PP&E>                                         99,289,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,592,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                105,187,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           6,166,000
<BONDS>                                        36,469,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0          
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                      108,568,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (46,016,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  105,187,000
<SALES>                                        29,439,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               29,651,000
<CGS>                                           3,860,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   5,019,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   47,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,457,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                23,128,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   23,128,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        2.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        2.42
        


</TABLE>
No. 72-6339.

#### Howard *v.*Georgia.

Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 38 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 38

 Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Health and Human 
  Services on December 28, 2000, relating to standards for privacy of 
             individually identifiable health information.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 2001

Mr. Paul introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 
    to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the 
 Committees on Ways and Means, and Education and the Workforce, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Health and Human 
  Services on December 28, 2000, relating to standards for privacy of 
             individually identifiable health information.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Health and Human Services on 
December 28, 2000 (volume 65, number 250, page 82462 of the Federal 
Register), relating to standards for privacy of individually 
identifiable health information, and such rule shall have no force or 
effect.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.5

        Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
                            of the United States Code

      I, Thomas M. O'Flynn, Chief Financial Officer of PSEG Power LLC, to the
best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of PSEG Power LLC on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PSEG
Power LLC.

                                            /s/ Thomas M. O'Flynn
                                           -------------------------------------
                                            Thomas M. O'Flynn
                                            PSEG Power LLC
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            August 1, 2006
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 23, 2015

No. 04-14-00894-CR

Adam Paul EANNARINO,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR8490

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s motion to reconsider denial of appellant’s request for oral argument is 

GRANTED. This court’s prior submission order is WITHDRAWN. 

The above cause is for formal submission and oral argument before this Court on 

Wednesday, October 21, 2015, at 10:00 AM, before a panel consisting of Chief Justice Sandee 

Bryan Marion, Justice Karen Angelini, and Justice Jason Pulliam.

Argument is limited to twenty (20) minutes to each side and ten (10) minutes rebuttal for

the appellant. If you do not wish to present argument, you must notify this Court in writing 

within seven (7) days of receiving this notice.

The Court provides a guest WiFi network for parties arguing before the Court. The 

password to access the network is available at the Clerk’s Office on the day of argument.

It is so ORDERED on this 23rd day of September, 2015.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:___________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Case 1:05-cv-00009-JD Document 1 Filed 01/07/05 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:05-cv-00009-JD Document 1 Filed 01/07/05 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:05-cv-00009-JD Document 1 Filed 01/07/05 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:05-cv-00009-JD Document 1 Filed 01/07/05 Page 4 of 9
Case 1:05-cv-00009-JD Document 1 Filed 01/07/05 Page 5 of 9
Case 1:05-cv-00009-JD Document 1 Filed 01/07/05 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:05-cv-00009-JD Document 1 Filed 01/07/05 Page 7 of 9
Case 1:05-cv-00009-JD Document 1 Filed 01/07/05 Page 8 of 9
Case 1:05-cv-00009-JD Document 1 Filed 01/07/05 Page 9 of 9
EXHIBIT 10.1



 






Exhibit 10.1




January 26, 2005 Amendment to Long-Term Incentive Plan



On January 26, 2005, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Quiksilver, Inc.
(the “Company”) granted awards to the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and its President pursuant
to the terms of the Company’s Long-Term Incentive Plan. The awards are for the performance period
beginning November 1, 2004 and ending October 31, 2007 and provide for the payment of cash bonuses
at the end of the performance period if the Company achieves specified levels of earnings per share
growth during the performance period over the Company’s earnings per share for fiscal 2004.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-31134 Conference Calendar NATHAN ROLLINS Plaintiff-Appellant

v. KEITH B ICKHAM, Major; JOHNNY GERALD, Major; WAYNE KENNEDY, Sergeant Master; ER IC MANNING, Sergeant; RICK WARREN, Lieutenant; ROBERT TANNER, Warden; B-TEAM EXTENDED LOCKDOWN OFFICERS Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:05-CV-1961
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Nathan Rollins, Louisiana prisoner # 131530, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various Louisiana Department ofCorrections officers. He also moves for oral argument on appeal and for the exclusion of evidence introduced in the district court. Rollinsargueson appeal that theevidencedoes not support the magistrate judge’s determination, which the district court adopted, that Rollins’s excessive United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 10, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-31134

2 force claims against Officers Keith Bickham, Johnny Gerald, and Rick Warren were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. However, Rollins has not demonstrated that the magistrate judge’s factual and credibility determinations concerning these claims constituted clear error. See Baldwin v. Stalder, 137 F.3d 836, 839 (5th Cir. 1998). Rollins does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of his claims against the Washington Correctional Institute, Officer Robert Tanner, and Officer Wayne Kennedy for failure toexhaust administrative remedies or, in the
case of Officer Kennedy, as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Accordingly, he has abandoned these claims. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). AFFIRMED; ALL PENDING MOTIONS DENIED.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7090 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the Secretary 

of the Treasury to permit an election relating to property transferred 

in connection with services to be made in electronic form. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 15, 2022 

Mr. MCHENRY (for himself and Mr. SMITH of Nebraska) 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 require 

the Secretary of the Treasury to permit an election relating to property transferred in connection with services 

to be made in electronic form. 

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 ‘‘Eliminating Paperwork 

5 for Startups Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7090 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELECTRONIC FILING OF ELECTION RELATING TO 

2 PROPERTY TRANSFERRED IN CONNECTION 

3 WITH SERVICES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 83(b)(2) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘‘(except 

6 that such election may be made in electronic form)’’ after 

7 ‘‘in such manner as the Secretary prescribes’’. 

8 (b) CONFIRMATION.—In the case of any election 

9 under section 83(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

10 which is made in electronic form, the Secretary of the 

11 Treasury shall ensure that a confirmation of such election 

12 is sent in electronic form to the person making such elec13 tion. 

14 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

15 this Act shall apply to elections made after the date that 

16 is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7700

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JERRY JEFFERSON SEXTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CR-97-9; CA-00-578-7) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 28, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Jefferson Sexton, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jerry Jefferson Sexton, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sexton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-74-01-SM

Mark Landers

O R D E R

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

trial is granted (document 18). Trial has been rescheduled for the August 2006

trial period. Defendant Landers shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than March 31, 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. 

Final Pretrial Conference: July 21, 2006 at 11:30 a.m.

Jury Selection: August 1, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:05-cr-00074-SM Document 19 Filed 03/23/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

March 23, 2006

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Alfred Rubega, AUSA

Don Feith, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00074-SM Document 19 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Fullerton *v.*Fullerton.

*(No.*24173

Decided June 14, 1933.)

*Messrs. Waterworth & Waterworth,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. McKeehan, Merriclc, Arter S Stuart,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional *question*is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Allen, Stephenson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur

Bevis, J., not participating.
Filed 3/14/12 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, )

)

Plaintiff and Respondent, )

) S186661

v. )

) Ct.App. 4/1 D054613

SETH CRAVENS, )

) San Diego County

Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. SCD206917

____________________________________)

MODIFICATION OF OPINION

THE COURT:

The opinion in this matter filed on January 30, 2012, and appearing at 53 

Cal.4th 500, is modified as follows:

1. On page 508, the sentence in the last partial paragraph beginning with 

the words, “Witnesses testified that just before,” is modified by changing the 

words, “Witnesses testified” to “There was testimony.”

2. On page 512, the disposition is modified to read as follows: “The 

judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed to the extent it ordered modification 

of the second degree murder conviction, and the matter is remanded to that court 

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

This modification affects the judgment.
IA

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 16

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States establishing

English as the official language of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 13, 2001

Mr. DOOLITTLE introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States establishing English as the official language of

the United States.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the

4 following article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission

9 for ratification:
2

•HJ 16 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. The English language shall be the offi3 cial language of the United States. As the official lan4 guage, the English language shall be used for all public

5 acts including every order, resolution, vote, or election,

6 and for all records and judicial proceedings of the Govern7 ment of the United States and the governments of the sev8 eral States.

9 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress and the States shall en10 force this article by appropriate legislation.’’.

Æ
#### John VAFIDES, Appellant, v. Paul J. SCHMIDT and Martha C. Schmidt, his Wife, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Oct. 22, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                    UT
<CIK>                                        0000081100
<NAME>                                       PUGET SOUND ENERGY
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      3,462,354
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    262,037
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         389,731
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 604,269
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,718,391
<COMMON>                                       845,605
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      450,724
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            83,577
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 1,379,906
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          65,662
<PREFERRED>                                    90,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           1,714,759
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             215,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 10,943
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  107,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 1,135,121
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  4,718,391
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      575,332
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           48,321
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     425,081
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     473,402
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        101,930
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             3,747
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 105,677
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       35,922
<NET-INCOME>                                   69,755
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    2,876
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  66,879
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       38,898
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      31,603
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         152,197
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .79
        

</TABLE>