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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-184-01-SM

Theoun So

O R D E R

Defendant So’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial is

granted (document 26). Trial has been rescheduled for the November 2006 

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

than August 25, 2006. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be

effective. No further continuances shall be granted without exceptional

circumstances having been shown.

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: October 26, 2006 at 3:30 p.m.

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

Case 1:05-cr-00184-SM Document 27 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

August 22, 2006

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Debra Walsh, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00184-SM Document 27 Filed 08/22/06 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.CSECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF 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, 2007 as filed with thesecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned , Kari Stefansson, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officerof the Registrant, and Lance Thibault, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer ofthe Registrant, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and (2) that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theRegistrant.

 
| Dated: May 9, 2007  | /s/ Kari Stefansson           |   |
|--------------------------|-------------------------------|--------|
|                     | Kari Stefansson               |
|                     | Chairman, President and Chief |
|                     | Executive Officer             |
|                     |                          |
|                     |                          |
| Dated:  May 9, 2007 | /s/ Lance Thibault            |   |
|                     | Lance Thibault                |
|                     | Chief Financial Officer and   |
|                     | Treasurer                     |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kevin D. Hall

v. Civil No. 05-cv-381-JD

Cheshire County Department of

Corrections, Superintendent, et al.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff seeks a Temporary Restraining Order against

defendants contacting the Albany County (New York) jail where he

is incarcerated unless the court first determines in an in camera

review that it is necessary. He also seeks discovery of any

prior communication between defendants and the Albany County

jail. 

The underlying factual predicate for the relief sought is

that plaintiff alleges that there are documents missing from his

legal file which he received from his father. The request for

Temporary Retraining Order is not supported by the affidavit

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). More importantly, if

plaintiff proved every fact alleged in his motion, his motion

would fail since he has not alleged a single fact as to any acts

by defendants to establish “foul play” by them. He is not

entitled to any injunctive relief on the face of the motion and a

Case 1:05-cv-00381-JD Document 55 Filed 02/06/07 Page 1 of 2
2

hearing is wholly unnecessary. 

The discovery request is not in accordance with the

discovery rules and is denied. 

I recommend that the request for Temporary Restraining

Order/Injunctive Relief by denied. 

Any objections to this report and recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of

Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992);

United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986). 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: February 6, 2007

cc: Kevin D. Hall, pro se

 John A. Curran, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00381-JD Document 55 Filed 02/06/07 Page 2 of 2
ex_154602.htm


Exhibit 10.210


 


 


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED UNSECURED DELAYED DRAW PROMISSORY NOTE


(Original Principal Amount $4,769,996)


 


This Amendment No. 2 to Amended and Restated Unsecured Delayed Draw Promissory Note (the "Amendment") is made as of June 30, 2019 (the “Effective Date”), by and between TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED HOLDINGS, INC., a Nevada corporation ("Maker"), and LITTLE HARBOR LLC, a Nevada limited liability company ("Holder").


 


WHEREAS, the Maker is indebted to the Holder under a certain Amended and Restated Unsecured Delayed Draw Promissory Note in the principal amount of Four Million Seven Hundred Sixty-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Six Dollars ($4,769,996), dated August 30, 2017 (the "Note"); and


 


WHEREAS, the Borrower and the Holder have agreed to amend the Note in accordance with this Amendment.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


1.     In the introduction paragraph, the phrase "June 30, 2019" is hereby restated in its entirety to read as "October 21, 2021" such that the Maturity Date shall be October 21, 2021.


 


2.     Except as expressly amended hereby, all terms and conditions of the Note shall remain in full force and effect.


 


3.     Upon the effectiveness of this Amendment, each reference in the Note to "the Note," "this Note," "hereunder," "hereof," "herein," or words of similar import shall mean and be a reference to the Note, as amended by this Amendment.


 


4.     This Amendment constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings, and agreements between such parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. To the extent of any conflict between the terms and conditions of this Amendment and the Note, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall govern.


 


5.     This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, including by means of facsimile and/or portable document format, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall together constitute one and the same document.


 


 


[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]


 


 


Amendment No. 2 to Amended and Restated


Unsecured Delayed Draw Promissory Note ($4,769,996 - Little Harbor)


 



 




 




 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Maker and Holder have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.


 


 


	 	
			TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED


			HOLDINGS, INC.

			
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	
			By:

				
			/s/Anthony Zolezzi     

			
	 	 	
			Anthony Zolezzi

			
	 	 	
			Chief Executive Officer

			



 


 


	 	
			LITTLE HARBOR, LLC

			
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	
			By:

				
			/s/David Van Andel     

			
	 	 	
			David Van Andel

			
	 	 	
			President

			



 


 


Amendment No. 2 to Amended and Restated


Unsecured Delayed Draw Promissory Note ($4,769,996 - Little Harbor)
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-20921

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAFAEL DOMINGUEZ, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(H-98-CR-126-2)

 

September 26, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rafael Dominguez, Jr., appeals his conviction by guilty plea

for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled

substance. He argues that the government failed to establish the

factual basis for his plea and that he received ineffective

assistance of counsel. After reviewing the briefs and the record,

we find no grounds for reversal.
2

Dominguez pleaded guilty to violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and

846. He argues that since the government conceded that he did not

know that there was cocaine included in the shipment of marijuana

he made, there is no factual basis for his guilty plea to the

charge that he conspired to possess with intent to distribute both

marijuana and cocaine. Section 841, which defines the offense

underlying the conspiracy, requires only knowing possession with

intent to distribute a controlled substance. Dominguez’s knowledge

that the shipment contained marijuana provided a factual basis for

his guilty plea. Whether or not he was aware of the cocaine in the

shipment does not bear on his guilt under Sections 841 and 846; the

references to cocaine in Section 841 appear only in its sentencing

provisions.

This court generally declines to review claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel on direct appeal. United States v. Gibson, 55

F.3d 173, 179 (5th Cir. 1995). We have “undertaken to resolve

claims of inadequate representation on direct appeal only in rare

cases where the record allowed us to evaluate fairly the merits of

the claim.” United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir.

1987). This is not such a case.

For these reasons, Dominguez’s conviction and sentence are

AFFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, William C. Adair, Jr., hereby certify that theQuarterly Report of Direct General Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in that Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Direct GeneralCorporation.            November 7, 2006      By: /s/ William C. Adair, Jr.         Date   (Signature)    Name: William C. Adair, Jr.    Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

JOHN JOSEPH HOFFMEISTER, and

HOFFMEISTER HOMES, INC. a

Nebraska Corporation,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

THE CITY OF SCRIBNER,

NEBRASKA, a political subdivision of

the State of Nebraska, KENNETH W.

THOMAS, in his Official Capacity as

Mayor of Scribner, Nebraska,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 4:23-cv-03094

STIPULATION AND JOINT

MOTION TO DISMISS

It is hereby stipulated by and between the parties hereto that the Plaintiffs’

Complaint and all claims for relief stated therein against the Defendants be

dismissed, with prejudice and with costs taxed to the parties incurring the same.

The parties jointly move that this Stipulation be granted and that an Order

be entered accordingly.

Dated this _____ day of March, 2024.

JOHN JOSEPH HOFFMEISTER, and

HOFFMEISTER HOMES, INC. a Nebraska

Corporation, Plaintiffs

By: Mattson Ricketts Law Firm

134 S 13th Street Suite 1200

Lincoln NE 68508

(402) 485-8433

jcg@mattsonricketts.com

By: /s/ Jacob C. Garbison

Jacob C. Garbison, # 26789

4:23-cv-03094-JMG-SMB Doc # 31 Filed: 03/26/24 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 64
2

THE CITY OF SCRIBNER, NEBRASKA,

a political subdivision of the State of

Nebraska, KENNETH W. THOMAS, in his

Official Capacity as Mayor of Scribner,

Nebraska, Defendants,

By: Baylor Evnen Wolfe & Tannehill, LLP

Union Bank Place

1248 “O” Street, Suite 900

Lincoln, NE 68508

(402) 475-1075

sfoster@baylorevnen.com

cschmidt@baylorevnen.com

By: /s/ Susan M. Foster

Susan M. Foster, # 24192

Christopher M. Schmidt, # 26096

4670303

4:23-cv-03094-JMG-SMB Doc # 31 Filed: 03/26/24 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 65
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2266

In Re: LESTER STOVALL,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-95-303-PJM)

Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 19, 1997

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lester Stover, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Lester Stovall filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking

an order compelling the district court to allow him to amend his

complaint and to certify himself and others as a class. We deny the

petition.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary

circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402

(1976). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other

means by which the relief sought could be granted, In re Beard, 811

F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute

for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.

1979). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden

of showing that he has "no other adequate means to attain the

relief he desires" and that his right to such relief is "clear and

indisputable." Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35

(1980). Stovall has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny

his petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Noel Castro,

Petitioner

v. Civil No. 06-cv-11-SM

United States of America,

Respondent

O R D E R

Re: (Document No. 18)

Motion for Permission to File a Second § 2255 Motion

Ruling: Denied. Petitioner must move for an order

authorizing the district court to consider this second/successive

application for relief in the United States Court of Appeals for

the First Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255 and 2244(a)(3)(A)

(“Before a second or successive application permitted by this

section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move

in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the

district court to consider the application.”).

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

August 28, 2007

cc: Noel Castro, pro se

Peter E. Papps, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00011-SM Document 19 Filed 08/28/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Harvey Pratt

v. Civil No. 05-cv-191-JD

Warden, Northern New Hampshire

Corrections Facility

PROCEDURAL ORDER

The petitioner has filed a motion and an amended motion

requesting a certificate of appealability (documents nos. 34 &

37). The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability

on the ground that the petitioner has failed to make a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

July 10, 2006 

cc: Harvey Pratt, pro se

Nicholas P. Cort, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00191-JD Document 39 Filed 07/10/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

NH Department of Health and Human

Services Division of Children

Youth and Familie s

v . No. 06-fp-14 8

Elena Katz and Arnold Grodma n

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERI S

Defendant's request to proceed in forma pauperis (document

no . 3) is hereby granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the

filing fee .

This case has been assigned civil number 06-cv-148-SM .

SO ORDERED .

James R . Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judg e

Date : April 26, 200 6

cc : Brian J .X . Murphy, Esq .

Elena Katz, pro se

Arnold Grodman, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00148-SM Document 6 Filed 04/26/06 Page 1 of 1
AMERUS LIFE HOLDINGS, INC.
Exhibit 11 - Statement Re:  Computation of Per Share Earnings
<TABLE>
                                                     1998                    1997
                                          ------------------------    -----------------------
                                                   Number    Per              Number     Per
                                            Net       of    Share     Net        of    Share
                                          Income   Shares   Amount  Income     Shares    Amount
                                          ------   -------  ------  -------    -------   --------
                                                       (in thousands, except per share amounts)

<S>                                       <C>      <C>      <C>       <C>     <C>         <C>     
Basic EPS
     Net Income                           $21,757  34,735    $0.63     $14,580  23,156    $0.63

Effect of Dilutive securities
     Options                                    -      65        -           -       -        -
     Warrants                                   -      31        -           -       -        -
                                          -------  ------    -----     -------   ------   -----
Diluted EPS                               $21,757  34,831    $0.62     $14,580   23,156   $0.63
                                          =======  ======    =====     =======   ======   =====




</TABLE>
Exhibit (10)(a)

  

  

  

  

  

  

  Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

  

  

  

  

  We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
    Post-Effective Amendment No. 24 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-181616) and Amendment No. 505 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-09763),
    and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity
    Company of New York and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln New York Account N For Variable Annuities for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

  

  

             /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

  

  

  

  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

  August 22, 2019
Exhibit 10.17


 


Horn & Co. Draft May 16, 2019


 


SECOND AMENDMENT TO SERVICES AGREEMENT


 


This
Second AMENDMENT TO SERVICES Agreement (this “Amendment”), effective as of November 30, 2018 (the “Effective
Date”), is made and entered into by and between INX Limited, a company organized under the laws of Gibraltar (the “Company”)
and Bentley Limited, a company organized under the laws of England and Wales (the “Consultant”). Each of the
Consultant and the Company shall sometimes be referred to as a “Party” and collectively, as the “Parties”.


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, the Parties entered into
a Services Agreement, dated March 8, 2018, as amended on August 1, 2018 (the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Parties desire to further
amend the Agreement, as further set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the mutual promises and covenants hereinafter set forth, the Parties agree as follows:


 


		1.	Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall bear
the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.



 


		2.	Section 2.1 (A) shall be added after Section 2.1 and before
Section 2.2 to read as follows:



 


“Notwithstanding
the 100,000 INX Tokens cap set forth in Section 2.1(ii) above, commencing as of December 1, 2018 (the “Commencement Date”)
and until the consummation of the initial public offering of INX Tokens contemplated by the Company, the Consultant shall be entitled
to a grant of additional 7,500 INX Tokens per each month of services rendered by it to the Company as of the commencement date,
in consideration for an exercise price of US$ 0.01 per each INX Token.” 


 


		3.	Unless amended hereby, all provisions of the Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect.



 


[The
remainder of this page was intentionally left blank]


 


Confidential


 




    1


     


    

 


Final


 


[Signature Page to the Second Amendment
to Services Agreement]


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties
hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.


 


	/s/ Alan Silbert	 	/s/ James Crossley
	INX LIMITED	 	BENTLEY LIMITED 


 


	By:	Alan Silbert, Director	 	By:	James Crossley, Director


 


 


2
Case 1:05-cr-00139-SM   Document 26   Filed 02/09/06   Page 1 of 2

Case 1:05-cr-00139-SM   Document 26   Filed 02/09/06   Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6280
LEWIS SKINNER, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus EDSEL T. TAYLOR, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-2150-2-20) Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: May 4, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lewis Skinner, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Lauri J. Soles, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Skinner v. Taylor , No. CA-97-2150-2-20 (D.S.C. Feb. 6, 1998). 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-222-01-PB

Jose Gonzalez

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the December 6, 2005

trial in the above case, citing the need for additional time to

review discovery and prepare a defense. The government does not

object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from December 6, 2005 to February 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-00222-PB Document 9 Filed 12/05/05 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on January

23, 2006 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

December 5, 2005

cc: Richard Foley, Esq.

Robert Veiga, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00222-PB Document 9 Filed 12/05/05 Page 2 of 2