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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michaela Gingras

by next friend

Justine Gingras

v. Civil No. 05-378-JD

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

The court has reviewed the joint assented to motion for

approval of settlement on behalf of a minor together with all of

the attached exhibits.

Pursuant to LR 17.1, New Hampshire Superior Court Rule 111

is applicable in this case. The court notes that the provisions

of New Hampshire Superior Court Rule 111(C) have not been

complied with. Therefore, approval will be held in abeyance

pending compliance with that Rule.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

December 11, 2006

cc: Stephen R. Fine, Esquire

Christopher D. Hawkins, Esquire

E. Tupper Kinder, Esquire 

Case 1:05-cv-00378-JD Document 33 Filed 12/11/06 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of deCODE genetics, Inc. (the “Registrant”)for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned , KariStefansson, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,and Lance Thibault, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Registrant,each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (2) that the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 

| Dated: May 10, 2006 | /s/ KARI  STEFANSSON        |   |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------|--------|
|                     | Kari Stefansson             |   |
|                     | Chairman, President, Chief  |   |
|                     | Executive Officer           |   |
|                     |                        |   |
|                     |                        |   |
|                     |                        |   |
| Dated: May 10, 2006 | /s/ LANCE  THIBAULT         |   |
|                     | Lance Thibault              |   |
|                     | Chief Financial Officer and |   |
|                     | Treasurer                   |   |
|                     |                        |   |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40222

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RIVELINO DE JESUS YEPEZ-ROSAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:13-CR-734-1

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Rivelino de Jesus Yepez-Rosas has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). At the request of this court, the attorney has filed a letter advising 

of the efforts to inform Yepez-Rosas of his rights under Anders in a language 

he can understand. United States v. Moreno-Torres, 768 F.3d 439, 441 (5th 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 26, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40222 Document: 00512914004 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2015
No. 14-40222

Cir. 2014). In the letter, Yepez-Rosas’s attorney states that he has 

communicated all relevant information to the defendant in Spanish. YepezRosas has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, 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.

2

 Case: 14-40222 Document: 00512914004 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

DAVID J. ELLIS,

Defendant.

4:23CR3060

ORDER

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

20), 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. 20), is granted.

2) Pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before December 12, 

2023.

3) The conference call previously scheduled to be held on October 31, 

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

before the undersigned magistrate judge at 9:00 a.m. on December 

19, 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 December 19, 2023 shall 

be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the 

4:23-cr-03060-JMG-CRZ Doc # 21 Filed: 10/26/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 51
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 26th day of October, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cr-03060-JMG-CRZ Doc # 21 Filed: 10/26/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 52
EXHIBIT 34.1

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



The Management Committee

BMW Financial Services NA, LLC



We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that BMW
      Financial Services NA, LLC (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange  Commission's Regulation AB for Asset-Backed Securities, BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2018-1, excluding criteria
      1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x)(A)-(C), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii), and 1122(d)(4)(xv) which management has determined are not applicable to the activities
      performed by the Company with respect to the asset-backed securities transactions being serviced as of December 31, 2018 and for the period from October 17, 2018 to December 31, 2018. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those
      servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria based on our examination.



Our examination was conducted in accordance with the attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,
      accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2018-1, determining
      whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our procedures were limited to
      selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included in BMW Vehicle Lease Trust
      2018-1.  Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the
      period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria specified in the first
      paragraph.



In our opinion, management’s assertion that BMW Financial Services NA, LLC complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of December 31,
      2018 and for the period from October 17, 2018 to December 31, 2018 is fairly stated, in all material respects.







/s/ CohnReznick LLP



Roseland, New Jersey

March 28, 2019
EXHIBIT 31.4

Certification Pursuant to Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act

I, E. James Ferland, certify
that:

1.

I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PSEG Power LLC;

2.

Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The
registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure
controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to
be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report
any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

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

(a) All significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or
not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

|Date:   October 30, 2003 | /s/ E. James
  Ferland  
|------------------------ | ------------------------
|                         |                         
|                         | E. James Ferland        
|                         | PSEG Power
  LLC        
|                         | Chief
  Executive Offcer
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00435-CV

Valley Forge Insurance Company

v.

Exiquio Salinas

On Appeal from the

93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-3306-18-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, vacates the trial court’s judgment and dismisses the case. The Court orders the

judgment VACATED and the case is DISMISSED. Each party shall bear their own costs 

relating to this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 11, 2023
exv10wpw1



 




Exhibit 10-P-1



Annual Incentive Compensation Plan Metrics for
2005



On March 9, 2005, the Compensation Committee
of the Board of Directors of the Company approved the specific
performance goals and business criteria to be used for purposes
of determining any future cash awards for 2005 for participants,
including executive officers, under the Company’s
shareholder-approved Annual Incentive Compensation Plan (filed
as Exhibit 10-T to the Company’s Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999). For
most participants, the performance criteria to be used for 2005
under the plan include attaining specified levels of:




			
	 	• 	
    total company pre-tax profits,
    
	 
	 	• 	
    relevant business unit pre-tax profits (including
    the related financing profits),
    
	 
	 	• 	
    relevant business unit cost reductions,
    
	 
	 	• 	
    relevant business unit market shares, and
    
	 
	 	• 	
    relevant business unit quality metrics.
    





Performance results against target levels
established for each of these criteria will be weighted 75% to
total company and business unit pre-tax profits and 25% to
business unit cost performance, market share and quality.




For some participants, including certain
executive officers, whose job responsibilities encompass
multiple business units, the performance criteria to be used for
2005 under the plan include attaining specified levels of:




			
	 	• 	
    total company pre-tax profits,
    
	 
	 	• 	
    total company cost reductions,
    
	 
	 	• 	
    total company market share, and
    
	 
	 	• 	
    total company quality metrics.
    





Performance results against target levels
established for each of these criteria will be weighted 75% to
total company pre-tax profits and 25% to total company cost
performance, market share and quality.




Based on business performance results for 2005
against the targeted levels established for each criteria, the
Compensation Committee will determine the percentage of the
target award that is earned, which could range between 0% and
200% depending on actual performance achieved relative to the
target levels. In addition, individual awards may be increased
(within limits set by the Compensation Committee) or decreased
from a formula amount, based on leadership level or salary grade
level, to reward a person’s performance.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1136

_____________________________
J ONATHAN H ARDT , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for W ashington County

. Timothy Register , Judge

. November 6, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , W INOKUR , and J AY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jonathan Hardt, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America,

Plaintiff

 

v. CR. 05-173-01-SM

Daniel Riendeau,

 Defendant

O R D E R

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

trial is granted (document no. 92). Defendant Riendeau shall file a waiver of

speedy trial rights not later than January 17, 20078 On the filing of such

waiver, his continuance shall be effective. Trial has been rescheduled for the

April 2008 trial period. 

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 exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Case 1:05-cr-00173-SM Document 93 Filed 01/03/08 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference is rescheduled for March 21, 2008 at 

2:00 p.m. 

Jury selection will take place on April 1, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

January 3, 2008

cc: Michael Shklar, Esq.

Helen Fitzgibbon, AUSA

Debra Walsh, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:05-cr-00173-SM Document 93 Filed 01/03/08 Page 2 of 2
---

Exhibit 99.12

Douglas Beahm, PE, PG

September 28, 2006

|Re: | Energy Metals Corporation           
|--- | ------------------------------------
|    | Annual Information Form and Form 40F

I am the author of the following Technical Reports
entitled:

- Red Rim Project, Sweetwater County, Wyoming, dated June 14, 2006;
- Peterson Uranium Project, Converse County, Wyoming dated June 17, 2006;
- Moore Ranch Uranium Project, Campbell County, Wyoming dated June 27, 2006

(the Reports) referred to in the Annual Information Form and
Form 40F of Energy Metals Corporation dated September 28, 2006 (the "AIF and
40F"). I consent to being named in both the AIF and 40F and to the use of the
Report in the AIF and 40F.

I have read the AIF and 40F and confirm that:

| | (a) | I have no reason to believe that there are any
      misrepresentations in the information contained in the AIF and 40F derived
      from the Report or that is within my knowledge as a result of the
      investigations and enquiries made by me in connection with the preparation
      of the Report; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
| | (b) | the section in the AIF Description of Business fairly
      and accurately summarizes the Report and omits no material information
      contained in the Report.                                                                                                                                              

Yours truly,

Per: /s/ Douglas Beahm

---
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 42

JOINT RESOLUTION

Memorializing fallen firefighters by lowering the

American flag to half-staff in honor of the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service inEmmitsburg, Maryland.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 42

JOINT RESOLUTION

Memorializing fallen firefighters by lowering the American

flag to half-staff in honor of the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service in Emmitsburg, Maryland.

Whereas 1,200,000 men and women comprise the American

fire and emergency services;
2

•HJ 42 EH

Whereas the fire and emergency services is considered one of

the most dangerous jobs in the United States;

Whereas fire and emergency services personnel respond to

over 16 million emergency calls annually, without reservation and with little regard for their personal safety;

Whereas fire and emergency services personnel are the first

to respond to an emergency, whether it involves a fire,

medical emergency, spill of hazardous materials, natural

disaster, act of terrorism, or transportation accident;

Whereas approximately one-third of all active fire and emergency personnel suffer debilitating injuries annually; and

Whereas approximately 100 fire and emergency services personnel die annually in the line of duty: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That each year, the American flags on all Federal office

4 buildings will be lowered to half-staff in honor of the Na5 tional Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service in Emmits6 burg, Maryland.

Passed the House of Representatives October 2,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.1
 ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING TRUST
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 (Dollar amounts in thousands)
 (Unaudited)
 Six Months EndedJune 30,
    
    
    Twelve Months Ended December 31,2006(1)
    
    
    2005(1)
    
    
    2005(1)
    
    
    2004(1)
    
    
    2003(1)
    
    
    2002(1)
    
    
    2001(1)Earnings from operations
    
    $
    100,425
    
    
    $
    34,316
    
    
    $
    137,354
    
    
    $
    112,949
    
    
    $
    114,906
    
    
    $
    119,860
    
    
    $
    99,887Add:Interest expense
    
    
    118,831
    
    
    
    79,904
    
    
    
    178,551
    
    
    
    139,836
    
    
    
    116,569
    
    
    
    117,228
    
    
    
    55,261Earnings as adjusted
    
    $
    219,256
    
    
    $
    114,220
    
    
    $
    315,905
    
    
    $
    252,785
    
    
    $
    231,475
    
    
    $
    237,088
    
    
    $
    155,148Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    118,831
    
    
    $
    79,904
    
    
    $
    178,551
    
    
    $
    139,836
    
    
    $
    116,569
    
    
    $
    117,228
    
    
    $
    55,261Capitalized interest
    
    
    26,308
    
    
    
    17,482
    
    
    
    39,111
    
    
    
    23,572
    
    
    
    26,854
    
    
    
    32,377
    
    
    
    29,186Total fixed charges
    
    $
    145,139
    
    
    $
    97,386
    
    
    $
    217,662
    
    
    $
    163,408
    
    
    $
    143,423
    
    
    $
    149,605
    
    
    $
    84,447Ratio of earnings to
fixed charges
    
    
    1.5
    
    
    
    1.2
    
    
    
    1.5
    
    
    
    1.5
    
    
    
    1.6
    
    
    
    1.6
    
    
    
    1.8
 
 (1)
    
    Net earnings from discontinued operations have been reclassified for all periods
presented.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-89-01-SM

Ioan E. Codarcea

ORDER OF RECUSAL

As I own stock in Bank of America, a corporation that would

be entitled to restitution from the defendant, I am required to,

and hereby do recuse myself from presiding over this case. See

28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4).

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

June 13, 2006

cc: Robert M. Kinsella, Esq.

Michael J. Iacopino, Esq.

Christopher H. Pingree, USPO

Case 1:05-cr-00089-PB Document 64 Filed 06/13/06 Page 1 of 1