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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America,

Plaintiff

 

v. Case No. 04-cr-191-01-SM

Phillip Scott Scherrer,

 Defendant

O R D E R

Defendant Scherrer’s motion to continue the trial is granted (document no.

43). Trial has been rescheduled for the June 2010 trial period. Defendant

Scherrer shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than April 9, 2010. 

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 exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Case 1:04-cr-00191-SM Document 45 Filed 04/01/10 Page 1 of 2
Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for June 4, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. 

Jury selection will take place on June 15, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

April 1, 2010 

cc: Liam Scully, Esq.

Robert Kinsella, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

2

Case 1:04-cr-00191-SM Document 45 Filed 04/01/10 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Chief Judge, United Sta tes District Court for 1 the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.



## United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-4074

___________ William J. Reed, * Plaintiff-Appellant, * v. * Junior College District of St. Louis, St. * Appeal from the United States Louis County, Missouri; doing * District Court for the business as St. Louis Community * Eastern District of Missouri. College at Florissant Valley; Mary C. * Brewster; Janice Wells-White; Joann * [UNPUBLISHED] L. Ordinachev; Julia K. Muller; * Lawrence D. Shayer; John A. Wright, * Defendants-Appellees. * * * *

* * *

___________ Submitted: May 12, 1998 Filed: June 1, 1998

___________ Before BEAM and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and MELLOY , District Judge. 1

___________ PER CURIAM.The Hon orable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Easter n 2 District of Missouri. -2- Wil liam Reed filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the Junio r College District of St. Louis and the members of the board of trustees in their individual capacit ies, when his contract to serve as campus police chief was not renewed. H e alleged that the failure to renew violated his first amendment rights, his procedural due process rights, the Missouri Administrative Procedure Act, R.S.Mo. § 536.150, and his contractual rights. A jury returne d a verdict for the defendants on the first amendment claim after the district court had granted su mmary judgment in favor of the defendants 2 on the other claims. Reed now raises no is sue related to his first amendment claim but appeals from the judgment dismissing his other causes of action. Based on our review of the record we affirm on the basis of the district court’s opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. ATTEST: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Opinion issued January 14, 2014.

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00509-CV

———————————

JOSE LUIS CARDENAS D/B/A J & S BODY SHOP, Appellant

V.

BETTY WILSON AND JEFFERY WILSON, Appellees

On Appeal from the 215th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2013-25987

O P I N I O N

In this dispute over a pick–up truck repair bill, Betty Wilson and Jeffery 

Wilson moved in the trial court that it review auto–mechanic Jose Cardenas’ notice 

of intent to file a mechanic’s lien and set the lien aside. See TEX. GOV’T CODE

ANN. § 51.903 (West 2013). The trial court found that Cardenas’ lien was
EXHIBIT 31.2
                              CERTIFICATION

I, David T. Nguyen, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Portsmouth Square,
Inc.;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
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 annual 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 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 registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing equivalent functions):

    a) all significant deficiencies and material weakness 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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: February 13, 2004                       /s/ David T. Nguyen
                                              ---------------------------
                                              David T. Nguyen, Treasurer
                                              and Controller (serving as
                                              Chief Financial Officer)
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jeorge Cecilio Gonzales, Appellant

No. 06

- 17

- 00146

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 354th District Court of Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 28,368 ). Opinion delivered b y Justice Moseley, Chief

Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial cour t

. We note that the appellant, Jeorge Cecilio Gonzales, has adequately indicated his inability

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDE RED MARCH 6, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Compensatory Arrangements with Executive Offiers



 Exhibit 10.35 
  
 Compensatory Arrangements with Executive Officers 
  
 As of March 1, 2005, Lifeline Systems, Inc. has the following compensatory arrangements with each of its named executive officers (as
defined in Item 402(a)(3) of Regulation S-K) and each of its other executive officers: 
  

							
	 Name and Title

	  	2005 Base Salary (1)

	  	2005 Option Grant (2)

	 
	 Ronald Feinstein, President and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	380,000	  	(3	)
			
	 Ellen Berezin, Vice President, Human Resources
	  	$	172,000	  	14,500	 
			
	 Mark G. Beucler, Vice President Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
	  	$	175,000	  	14,500	 
			
	 Edward M. Bolesky, Senior Vice President, Customer Care
	  	$	196,000	  	14,500	 
			
	 Richard M. Reich, Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer
	  	$	212,500	  	14,500	 
			
	 Donald G. Strange, Senior Vice President, Sales
	  	$	185,000	  	14,500	 
			
	 Leonard E. Wechsler, Vice President, Lifeline Systems, Inc. and President, Lifeline Systems Canada
	  	$	180,000	  	14,500	 



	(1)	Each executive officer is also eligible to participate in the 2005 Officer Incentive Plan, with the exception of Leonard E. Wechsler, who receives bonuses pursuant to his employment
agreement. 


	(2)	Reflects options granted on February 2, 2005 pursuant to the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan. Each option is exercisable in three equal annual installments beginning on the first
anniversary of the date of grant. 


	(3)	On February 2, 2005, the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors voted to grant to Mr. Feinstein a stock appreciation right based on 25,000 shares of common
stock at a base price of $26.46 per share equivalent. The stock appreciation right vests in 16 quarterly installments commencing on May 2, 2005 and will be settled in stock.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-232-01-PB

Frank Ayala

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the January 4, 2006

trial in the above case. Defendant cites the need for additional

time to pursue plea negotiations. The government does not object

to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to pursue plea negotiations and properly prepare for trial, the

court will continue the trial from January 4, 2006 to March 7,

2006. In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds

pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated

reasons, the ends of justice served in granting a continuance

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

speedy trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00232-PB Document 11 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 2
2

The December 21, 2005 final pretrial conference is continued

until February 16, 2006 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

December 21, 2005

cc: James Gleason, Esq.

Arnold Huftalen, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00232-PB Document 11 Filed 12/21/05 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:05-cv-00191-JD Document 3 Filed 06/06/05 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Puget Energy, Inc. and Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (the Companies) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Stephen P.
Reynolds, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

| | (1) | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
               the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date:
November 4, 2004               
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|                                     
|/s/ Stephen P. Reynolds              
|                                     
|Stephen P. Reynolds                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Puget Energy, Inc. and Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (the Companies) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Stephen A. McKeon,
the Senior Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Companies, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

| | (1) | The
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) | The
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                     |                                  
|-------------------- | ---------------------------------
|Date: August 8, 2003 |                                  
|                     |                                  
|                     | /s/ Stephen A. McKeon            
|                     |                                  
|                     | Stephen A. McKeon                
|                     | Senior Vice President Finance and
|                     | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.1


 


Summary of 2005 Management Incentive Bonus
Plan


 


On January 20, 2005, the Board of Directors of Angeion Corporation
approved the 2005 Management Incentive Bonus Plan (the “2005 Bonus Plan”).  The 2005 Bonus Plan provides for the payment
of cash compensation to eligible employees, including the Company’s executive
officers, upon achievement of predetermined targets.  The 2005 Bonus Plan is similar to bonus plans
operated by the Company in past years and provides that bonuses will be earned
during 2005 if Angeion achieves specified levels of (i) earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, (ii) revenues from sales of
cardiorespiratory diagnostic products, and (iii) revenues from sales of New
Leaf health and fitness products.


 


Under the 2005 Bonus Plan, Mr. Rodney A. Young, the Company’s Chief
Executive Officer, is eligible for a bonus ranging from 21.0% of base salary if
the threshold level is met in each of the three areas to 50.0% of base salary
if the maximum level is met in each of the three areas.  The Company’s Chief Financial Officer, Dale
H. Johnson, is eligible for a bonus ranging from 10.8% of base salary if the
threshold is met in each of the three areas to36.0% of base salary if the
maximum level is met in each of the three areas.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JOSE EMMANUEL VACA-SALDANA,

Defendant.

8:23MJ233

ORDER

The court has been presented a Financial Affidavit (CJA Form 23) signed by the 

above-named defendant in support of a request for appointed counsel. After a review of 

the Financial Affidavit, I find that the above-named defendant is eligible for appointment 

of counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. §3006A, and Amended 

Criminal Justice Act Plan for the District of Nebraska.

IT IS ORDERED:

The Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska is appointed to 

represent the above named defendant in this matter. In the event that the Federal 

Public Defender accepts this appointment, the Federal Public Defender shall forthwith 

file an appearance in this matter. In the event the Federal Public Defender should 

decline this appointment for reason of conflict or on the basis of the Criminal Justice Act 

Plan, the Federal Public Defender shall forthwith provide the court with a draft 

appointment order (CJA Form 20) bearing the name and other identifying information of 

the CJA Panel attorney identified in accordance with the Criminal Justice Act Plan for 

this district.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall provide a copy of this order to 

the Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska.

DATED this 19th day of April, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ F.A. Gossett, III

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00111-BCB-SMB Doc # 7 Filed: 04/19/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joshua Manning

V.

Warden, Northern NH Correctional Facility

Civil No. 05-cv-369-SM

ORDE R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report and

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated October 25, 2005 for the

reasons stated therein.

SO ORDERED .

November 14, 2005

even J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc : Sven D. Wiberg, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00369-SM Document 8 Filed 11/14/05 Page 1 of 1
#### CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Juan M. CANTU et al., Appellees.

No. 4560.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Eastland.

June 16, 1972.

Larry L. Gollaher, Dallas, for appellant.

Boyd, Veigel & Gay (George McCles-key), McKinney, for appellees.

McCLOUD, Chief Justice.

This is a venue case. Juan Cantu and wife, Rosa Cantu, sued Centennial Insurance Company under the uninsured motorist provisions of a standard Texas family combination automobile policy issued to Juan Cantu by Centennial. Centennial filed a plea of privilege requesting that the case be transferred to Harris County, its place of residence. Juan and Rosa Cantu relied upon Subdivision 28, Article 1995, Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. to retain venue in Collin County. The plea of privilege was overruled by the trial court and Centennial Insurance Company has appealed. We reverse and render.

The evidence shows that appellees, Juan and Rosa Cantu, reside in Collin County; that the policy, which was introduced in evidence, was an “assigned risk policy”; that Juan Cantu signed an “Application for Automobile Liability Insurance” under the Texas Automobile Insurance Plan; and, that the policy was issued by appellant. The parties stipulated that the accident occurred in Dallas County.

Subdivision 28 provides in part as follows :

> “ • . . Suits on policies may be brought against any life insurance company, or accident insurance company, or life and accident, or health and accident, or life, health and accident insurance company, in the county where the home office of such company is located, or in the county where loss has occurred or where the policyholder or beneficiary instituting such suit resides.”

Our Supreme Court has recently stated that Subdivision 28 is not applicable in a suit by the insured against the insurer under the uninsured motorist provisions of an automobile liability policy. Pioneer *350Casualty Company v. Johnson, 450 S.W.2d 64 (Tex.Sup.1970). The Court said:

> “Section 28 is inapplicable because Pioneer is not the type of company, and the insurance policy sued on is not the type of policy, to which this exception applies.”

See also Insured Lloyds v. Classic Motors, 296 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1956, no writ); Mason v. Allstate Insurance Company, 440 S.W.2d 404 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1969, no writ); Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company v. Powell, 414 S.W.2d 770 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1967, no writ).

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is transferred to the District Court of Harris County.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

NORMAN NEWMAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3684 

[February 15, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; William W. Haury, Jr., 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 10-19258CF10A.

Norman Newman, Bristol, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

GROSS, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
C OURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

Ex Parte Luis Carlos Medrano,

App ellant. §
§
§
§
§
§ No. 08

- 21

- 00016

- CR

Appeal from the Criminal District Court, #1
of El Paso County, Texas (Trial Court No. 20040D03900

- 34I

- 01)

O R D E R
On March 2 2 , 2021, the trial court filed a certificate of Applicant Luis Carlos Medrano’s right to appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2 indicat ing that this case “is a plea

bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” While the record shows that Applicant
entered a plea

- bargain agreement for the underlying offense of possessing more than four but less than 200 grams of cocaine in violati on of Texas Health & Safety Code § 481.115 , the appeal here concerns the trial court’s December 10, 2020, denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus
under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure § 11.072(8). As a result, after reviewing the record, this
Court has determined that the certificate is defective. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) ; see also Ex Parte King , No. 03

- 18

- 00062

- CR, 2018 WL 3849488, at **3

- 4 (Tex.App.

— Austin Aug. 14, 2018)( not desig nated for publication). Consequently, under Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure 37.1 and 35.5, we order the trial court to issue a new certificate of Applicant’s right to appeal

. See Ex Parte Tarango , 116 S.W.3d 201 (Tex.App.

— El Paso 2003). The clerk’s record in this cause reflects Applicant filed an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus on October 5, 2020. The trial court denied the relief sought on December 10, 2020. On January 8, 2021, the Applicant filed a notic e of appeal for the denial of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.Accordingly, the certificate should reflect the appeal is taken from the denial of the Habeas Corpus

.

The trial court’s certification signed on March 22, 2021, states the case “is a plea

- bargain case and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The underlying case Applicant was convicted in was a plea bargain in which he waived his right to appeal, however, the record shows Applicant is currently appealing the denial of a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
The tria l court is ordered to prepare and file with he trial court clerk within 15 days from
the date of this order a corrected certification of the defendant’s right of appeal as required by
T EX .R.A PP .P. 25(a)(2) and 25.2(d). The trial court clerk shall prepare a supplemental clerk’s record containing the corrected certification and file it with this Court no later than June 3, 2022.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10 th d ay of May , 2022

. PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox and Alley , JJ.