alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT 09/30/00 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
INCOME FOR THE 9 MONTHS ENDED 09/30/00 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           4,790
<SECURITIES>                                    23,240
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,232
<ALLOWANCES>                                       660
<INVENTORY>                                     13,528
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,860
<PP&E>                                          17,083
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,421
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  98,344
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,309
<BONDS>                                          2,739
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            38
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,951
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    98,344
<SALES>                                         46,876
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,876
<CGS>                                           30,699
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,699
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 150
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,689
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,073
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,496
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,496
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .76


</TABLE>
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/04 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/04 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/04 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/04 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/04 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/04 Page 6 of 6
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1125

To redesignate the Federal building located at 1 Federal Plaza in New

York, New York, as the ‘‘Ronald H. Brown Federal Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 20, 2001

Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To redesignate the Federal building located at 1 Federal

Plaza in New York, New York, as the ‘‘Ronald H. Brown

Federal Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. RONALD H. BROWN FEDERAL BUILDING.

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building located at

5 1 Federal Plaza in New York, New York, and known as

6 the United States Court of International Trade, shall be

7 known and designated as the ‘‘Ronald H. Brown Federal

8 Building’’.

9 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg10 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
2

•HR 1125 IH

1 States to the Federal building referred to in subsection

2 (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Ronald H.

3 Brown Federal Building.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1597

JIHBIN HWANG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF GREENBELT; ERNEST JOHNSON; GREENBRIER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION; JOHN DOE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA99-3825-PJM) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 6, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jihbin Hwang, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Karp, Michelle Lee Seidleck, ALLEN, JOHNSON, ALEXANDER & KARP, Baltimore, Maryland; Rhonda Lee Weaver, Upper Marlboro, Maryland; William John Hickey, Thomas Collier Mugavero, MONTEDONICO, HAMILTON & ALTMAN, Chevy Chase, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).1 We have considered only Hwang’s 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) claim because that is the only issue Hwang raised in his informal brief. See 4th Circuit Local Rule 34(b). 2 Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on April 27, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on April 28, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Jihbin Hwang appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil complaint. 1 We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hwang v. City of Greenbelt , No. CA-99-3825-PJM (D. Md. Apr. 28, 2000). 2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Carmen Marquez-Marin

v. Civil No. 05-ds-247-SM (NH)

Civil No. 05-cv-1619-HL (PR)

Alberto Gonzalez, Attorney General

of the United States, et al.

O R D E R

 Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of AUSA David

Rivera in Puerto Rico. Defendant objects. 

Background

Plaintiff has sued defendant for damages related to alleged

gender and national origin discrimination and for retaliatory

termination. She was dismissed from a position as a federal

prosecutor in Puerto Rico. Her supervisor for the one and onehalf year period prior to her termination was David Rivera. 

Rivera has been identified as a witness for trial by defendant. 

Plaintiff wishes to depose him in Puerto Rico, or, as a back up,

in Miami. Defendant maintains that since Rivera is now a Deputy

Chief in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Nashville, Tennessee, the

strict requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(2) should apply and

that the exceptions to the rule do not apply. 

Case 1:05-ds-00247-SM Document 18 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 3
2

Discussion

Despite the requirement that counsel are expected to appear

in person, lawyers from the Department of Justice frequently

request to appear by telephone. Invariably, I have granted the

requests. While defense counsel has not referenced it in her

response, plaintiff’s counsel states that defense counsel refused

to produce Mr. Rivera outside Tennessee because “(t)he ‘policy’

of the United States government is not to provide witnesses

outside of their location for the purpose of taking of

depositions” even where the witness has been listed for trial by

the government and is an employee under the government’s control. 

Presumably, the government “policy” is not inflexible or lawyers

from Justice would begin to experience the same inflexibility

from others. 

The financial positions of the parties are dramatically

different. Only the Defense Department is better funded than

Justice. Ms. Marquez-Marin on the other hand is in financial

straits. Defendant employs Mr. Rivera and wants to use him as a

trial witness. It will not cost the government any more in time

or money to fly Mr. Rivera to Miami than it would to fly Ms.

Fernandez to Tennessee. Defendant is ordered to produce Mr.

Case 1:05-ds-00247-SM Document 18 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 3
3

Rivera in Miami for deposition at a time mutually agreeable to

Mr. Rivera, Ms. Fernandez and Ms. Berkan. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: June 2, 2006

cc: Judith Berkan, Esq.

 Carole M. Fernandez, Esq.

 Mary Jo Mendez-Vilella, Esq.

 US District Court - PR, Clerk

Case 1:05-ds-00247-SM Document 18 Filed 06/02/06 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     UT
<CIK>                         0000081100
<NAME>                        PUGET SOUND ENERGY
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      3,771,844
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    267,632
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         453,069
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 625,369
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,117,914
<COMMON>                                       852,253
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      459,854
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            114,134
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 1,426,241
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          58,162
<PREFERRED>                                    60,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           1,914,783
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             108,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 313,113
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  25,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 1,212,615
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  5,117,914
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      647,223
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           52,738
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     478,600
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     531,338
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        115,885
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             4,390
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 120,275
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       42,083
<NET-INCOME>                                   78,192
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    2,303
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  75,889
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       39,064
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      34,900
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         190,453
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.89


</TABLE>
#### John W. MARTIN, as Trustee of the Property of Florida East Coast Railway Company, a Corporation, Appellant, v. B. H. MEYER, as Executor, d/b/n of the Estate of Jack R. Rosen, Deceased, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Oct. 12, 1954.

See also Fla., 68 So.2d 597.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-14219

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN HOLLAND,

EDMUNDO COTA, 

WILLIAM MOORE, 

Defendant-Appellees.

USCA11 Case: 22-14219 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 05/31/2023 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 22-14219

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-00234-AT-CMS-1

____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The motions to dismiss filed by Edmundo Cota and John 

Holland are DENIED and this appeal may proceed. The government appeals from the district court’s pre-trial order denying the 

government’s motion to admit alleged co-conspirator statements 

under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). Although that is an interlocutory 

order and there has not yet been a trial or judgment, we have jurisdiction over this appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3731. 

Under § 3731, the government may file an interlocutory appeal from an order “suppressing or excluding evidence.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3731. Section 3731 must be “liberally construed to effectuate its 

purposes.” Id. Our predecessor court held that an order denying 

the admission of alleged co-conspirator statements after a James 

hearing is an order excluding evidence for purposes of § 3731. 

United States v. Perry, 624 F.2d 29, 30 (5th Cir. 1980); see United States 

v. James, 590 F.2d 575, 578-82 (5th Cir. 1979) (providing process for

evaluating whether alleged co-conspirator statements are admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) before trial). 

USCA11 Case: 22-14219 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 05/31/2023 Page: 2 of 3
22-14219 Opinion of the Court 3

Because the district court denied the government’s motion 

to admit the alleged co-conspirator statements after thoroughly 

considering their admissibility under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) and conducting what it called a James hearing on paper, we conclude that 

the order in this case is analogous to an order refusing to admit 

alleged co-conspirator statements after a James hearing, which is 

immediately appealable. See Perry, 624 F.2d at 30; United States 

v. Drogoul, 1 F.3d 1546, 1551 n.13 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that an 

order is appealable under § 3731 if it has “the practical effect of excluding evidence at trial”). Furthermore, this conclusion is consistent with the liberal construction of § 3731 required by the statute itself.

USCA11 Case: 22-14219 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 05/31/2023 Page: 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GERARDO SOTO-SIGALA and 

DAISY FRANCO,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 8:23CR113

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the defendant, Gerardo Soto-Sigala’s unopposed 

Motion to Continue Trial [44]. Counsel needs additional time to negotiate a resolution

short of trial. Counsel for the co-defendant, Daisy Franco, does not object to the 

requested continuance (see filing [45]). For good cause shown,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Continue Trial [44] is granted, as follows:

1. The jury trial, for both defendants, now set for July 31, 2023, is continued to

September 5, 2023.

2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds that the ends of 

justice will be served by granting this continuance and outweigh the interests 

of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising 

as a result of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between today’s date 

and September 5, 2023, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation 

of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant a 

continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective 

preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 

3161(h)(6), (7)(A) & (B)(iv).

DATED: July 17, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00113-RFR-MDN Doc # 46 Filed: 07/17/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 71
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mark Lessard and

Linda Lessard,

Plaintiffs

v. Civil No. 05-cv-192-SM

Wilton-Lyndeborough

Cooperative School District,

and the State of New Hampshire

Department of Education,

Defendants

O R D E R

Granted (document no. 78). Defendants will be allowed 90

minutes to offer rebuttal testimony; documents attached to the

motion are not yet allowed; Dr. Kemper will bring his file and

make it available at the hearing should he testify. Plaintiffs

shall advise Dr. Kemper to bring his file to the hearing; failure

to do so or Dr. Kemper's failure to bring his file for inspection

will result in his not being allowed to testify. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

October 5, 2006

cc: Jennifer A. Eber, Esq.

Richard L. O’Meara, Esq.

Pamela E. Phelan, Esq.

Jeanne M. Kincaid, Esq.

Karen A. Schlitzer, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00192-SM Document 79 Filed 10/05/06 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.7

        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 Energy Holdings
L.L.C., to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of
PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004
(the "Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C.


                                   /s/ Thomas M. O'Flynn
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                   Thomas M. O'Flynn
                                   PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C.
                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                   April 30, 2004
Exhibit 31

      Exhibit 31:  Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications

Re:   Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-HE4 (the "Trust")

I, Steven Shapiro, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form
10-K of the Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4.    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in
this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the
Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations
under the servicing agreements; and

5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be
included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of
noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on
Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association, NC Capital Corporation, WMC Mortgage Corp., Decision One
Mortgage Company, LLC, LaSalle Bank National Association, and Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company.

Date: March 30, 2007

/s/ Steven Shapiro
By: Steven Shapiro
Title: Vice President
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

CESAR GONZALEZ, and JESUS MANUEL 

SILVA-HUIZAR, 

Defendants. 

8:23CR122 

ORDER 

 

A telephone status conference was held today. During the conference Defendants made an 

Unopposed Oral Motion to Continue the Telephone Status Conference to allow them more time to 

consider and decide whether to enter a guilty plea. The motion was unopposed by the government. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1) Defendants’ Unopposed Oral Motion to Continue the Telephone Status Conference is 

granted. 

2) A telephonic status conference with counsel will be held before the undersigned 

magistrate judge at 11:30 a.m. on February 22, 2024. Counsel for the parties shall use 

Restricted Order [51] for conference connection instructions to participate in the call. 

3) In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the Court finds that the ends of justice 

will be served by granting this motion and outweigh the interests of the public and the 

defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising as a result of the granting of 

this motion, that is, the time between today’s date and on February 22, 2024, shall be 

deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the 

Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant this motion would deny counsel the reasonable time 

necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, 

and the novelty and complexity of the case. The failure to grant this motion might result 

in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B). 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 19th day of January, 2024. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Susan M. Bazis 

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00122-BCB-SMB Doc # 56 Filed: 01/19/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 134