alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 472 (Rev. 11/16), modified by NED (9/17) 

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. Case No. 8:23mj309

MONA MARIA TATARU, ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL

Defendant

Part I - Eligibility for Detention

Upon the

☒ Motion of the Government or Court’s own motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2),

the Court held a detention hearing and found that detention is warranted. 

This order sets forth the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), in 

addition to any other findings made at the hearing.

Part II - Findings of Fact and Law as to Presumptions under § 3142(e)

Part III - Analysis and Statement of the Reasons for Detention

After considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) and the information presented at the detention hearing, 

the Court concludes that the defendant must be detained pending trial because the Government has proven:

☒ By a preponderance of evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the 

defendant’s appearance as required.

In addition to any findings made on the record at the hearing, the reasons for detention include the following:

☒ Subject to lengthy period of incarceration if convicted

☒ Significant family or other ties outside the United States

☒ Lack of legal status in the United States

☒ Subject to removal or deportation after serving any period of incarceration

☒ Use of alias(es) or false documents

☒ Background information unknown or unverified

☒ The nature and circumstances of the offense charged.

OTHER REASONS OR FURTHER EXPLANATION:

Part IV - Directions Regarding Detention

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the Attorney General or to the Attorney General’s designated representative 

for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or 

being held in custody pending appeal. The defendant must be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation 

with defense counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, the person 

in charge of the corrections facility must deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance 

in connection with a court proceeding.

Date: 5/25/2023 s/ Michael D. Nelson

8:23-mj-00309-MDN Doc # 16 Filed: 05/25/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 27
Page 2 of 2

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-mj-00309-MDN Doc # 16 Filed: 05/25/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 28
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
<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
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            62,444
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                           34,333
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                             33,437
<EQUITIES>                                      24,183
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 125,493
<CASH>                                          10,967
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               2,280
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           9,597
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 202,147
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 56,665
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             49,057
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 15,735
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,866
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,273
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   202,147
<PREMIUMS>                                      24,926
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              1,747
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 614
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     779
<BENEFITS>                                      17,131
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            10,155
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    796
<INCOME-TAX>                                       262
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                534
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       534
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                  55,697
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                 56,665
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
| 001-11001                                | 06-0619596                        |
|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| (Commission File Number)                 | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |
|                                     |                              |
| 3 High Ridge Park, Stamford, Connecticut | 06905                             |
| (Address of principal executive offices) | (Zip Code)                        |

|   | o | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
|--------|---|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |
|--------|---|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| Item 8.01 | Other Events |
|-----------|--------------|

| Item 9.01 | Financial Statements and Exhibits |
|-----------|-----------------------------------|

|   | 99.1 | Press Release of Frontier Communications Corporation released on April 24, 2013. |
|--------|------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

|                            | FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION                        |
|---------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|                            |                                                       |
| Date:  April 25, 2013 | By:/s/ Nancy S. Rights                                     |
|                            | Nancy S. Rights                                            |
|                            | Senior Vice President, Deputy General Counseland Secretary |
|                            |                                                       |
|                            |                                                       |
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARIO JOHN TURNER,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00234-CR

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 2

of Collin County, Texas

(TC # 002-87100-2014)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Mario John Turner has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. Rule 42.2(a) permits an 

appellate court to dismiss a criminal appeal on the appellant’s motion at any time before the 

court’s decision. TEX.R.APP.P. 42.2(a). Finding that Appellant has complied with the 

requirements of Rule 42.2(a), we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

September 23, 2015

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
Blueprint






Exhibit 10.02(a)







Schedule identifying agreements substantially identical
to

 



the form of Agreement filed as Exhibit 10.02 hereto

 


 

 


	

	
 
Subscribed
Capital of ACM Research (Shanghai), Inc. 

 


	
Investor

	
 
Purchase
Price (RMB)

 

	
 
Capital
(%)

 


	
Hai Feng Investment
Holding Limited

	
  1,538,461.54 

	
  0.413%


	
Jiaxing Haitong
Xuchu Equity Investment Fund Partnership (Limited
Partnership)

	
  2,307,692.31 

	
  0.619%


	
Shanghai GP Lingang
Hi-tech Fund Partnership (Limited Partnership)

	
  1,923,076.92 

	
  0.516%


	
Wuxi Taihu Guolian
Emerging Industry Investment Enterprise (Limited
Partnership)

	
  1,923,076.92 

	
  0.516%


	
XinGang (Shanghai)
Management Consulting Limited Partnership

	
  727,115.38 

	
  0.195%


	
XinShi (Shanghai)
Management Consulting Limited Partnership

	
  1,781,923.08 

	
  0.478%


	
XinWei (Shanghai)
Management Consulting Limited Partnership

	
  4,756,153.85 

	
  1.276%
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the financial statements included in the Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 29, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                          23,487
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  116,727
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,763
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               176,233
<PP&E>                                         160,072
<DEPRECIATION>                                 121,993
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 233,631
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          222,674
<BONDS>                                        223,470
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           634
<OTHER-SE>                                   (306,482)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   233,631
<SALES>                                        138,918
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               355,445
<CGS>                                           11,828
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  162,797
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               133,344
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (31)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,372
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 36,264
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,349
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             31,915
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,915
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.49
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William Alexander Parks

v. Case No. 04-cv-445-PB

Carol A. Tatarinowicz, et al.

NOTICE OF RULING

Re: Document No. 36, Motion for TRO

Oral Arguments and Hearing

Ruling: Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to

succeed on his claims for injunctive relief. Nor has he alleged

facts that would warrant the use of federal judicial power to

enjoin an ongoing prosecution under state law. Motion denied. 

Entered by: Paul Barbadoro, District Judge

Date: June 24, 2005

cc: William Alexander Parks, pro se

Karla J. Black, Esq.

Donald Gardner, Esq.

Lawrence Gormley, Esq.

Daniel J. Mullen, Esq.

Kenneth D. Murphy, Esq.

Case 1:04-cv-00445-PB Document 69 Filed 06/24/05 Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Vianney Robles,

 

 Appellant,

v.

Amy Nichols, Kubinski & Nichols, P.C., 

Andres E. Almanzan,Mounce, Green, 

Myers, Safi, Paxson & Galatzan, P.C. aka 

Mounce, Green , Myers, Safi,Paxson & 

Galatzan, A Professional Corporation,

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00225-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2019DCV1582)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s second motion for extension of time within which to 

file the reply brief until February 11, 2020. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE THE APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS 

COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Doris Sipes, the Appellant’s attorney, prepare the 

Appellant’s reply brief and forward the same to this Court on or before February 11, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 2020.

PER CURIAM

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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1077

To provide that pay for prevailing rate employees in Pasquotank County,

North Carolina, be determined by applying the same pay schedules and

rates as apply with respect to prevailing rate employees in the local

wage area that includes Carteret County, North Carolina.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 15, 2001

Mr. JONES of North Carolina introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To provide that pay for prevailing rate employees in

Pasquotank County, North Carolina, be determined by

applying the same pay schedules and rates as apply

with respect to prevailing rate employees in the local

wage area that includes Carteret County, North Carolina.

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

3 SECTION 1. APPLICABILITY OF SAME PAY SCHEDULES AND

4 RATES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any provision of

6 subchapter IV of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code,

7 pay for prevailing rate employees in Pasquotank County,
2

•HR 1077 IH

1 North Carolina, shall be fixed and adjusted by applying

2 the same pay schedules and rates as apply with respect

3 to prevailing rate employees in the local wage area that

4 includes Carteret County, North Carolina.

5 (b) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this Act, the term

6 ‘‘prevailing rate employee’’ has the meaning given such

7 term under section 5342 of title 5, United States Code.

8 (c) REGULATIONS.—The Office of Personnel Man9 agement may prescribe any regulations necessary to carry

10 out this Act.

11 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This Act shall apply with re12 spect to pay for service performed in any pay period begin13 ning on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
** **

**Exhibit  31.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

**I, Todd Pittman, certify that:**

** **

**1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofSanchez Computer Associates, Inc.**

** **

**2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;**

** **

**3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;**

** **

**4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:**

** **

**(a)           Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and**

** **

**(c)           Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and**

** **

**5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors:**

** **

**(a)           All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.**

 

Dated: November 14, 2003

 

| /s/  TODD A.  PITTMAN                   |
|----------------------------------------------|
| *Todd A. Pittman,**Chief  Financial Officer* |

 

 

 

 

----
225 La. 490

#### A. K. TUGGLE et al. v. POLICE JURY OF WEBSTER PARISH et al. In re POLICE JURY OF WEBSTER PARISH et al., Applying for Certiorari, or Writ of Review.

No. 41433.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 22, 1954.

Rehearing Denied May 31, 1954.

Louis H. Padgett, Jr., Dist. Atty., Bossier City, for defendants-relators.

Watson & Williams, Natchitoches, fof plaintiffs-respondents.

HAWTHORNE, Justice.

Our decision in the case of McGee v. Police Jury of Caddo Parish, No. 41376, 225 La. 471, 73 So.2d 424, is decisive of the issue upon which a writ was granted in this case.

For the reasons assigned in the case of McGee et al. v. Police Jury of Caddo Parish this day decided, the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, is affirmed. Relators are to pay all costs insofar as allowed by law.

HAMITER, J., dissents with the reasons assigned by him in No. 41376.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6906 

To amend Public Law 94–241 to authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to increase the number of permits that are available for employers 

in Construction and Extraction Occupations seeking Commonwealth Only 

Transitional Workers, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2022 

Mr. SABLAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on the 

Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend Public Law 94–241 to authorize the Secretary 

of Homeland Security to increase the number of permits 

that are available for employers in Construction and 

Extraction Occupations seeking Commonwealth Only 

Transitional Workers, and for other purposes. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6906 IH

1 SECTION 1. PERMITS FOR EMPLOYERS IN CONSTRUCTION 

2 AND EXTRACTION OCCUPATIONS SEEKING 

3 COMMONWEALTH ONLY TRANSITIONAL 

4 WORKERS. 

5 Section 6(d)(3)(E)(i) of Public Law 94–241 (48 

6 U.S.C. 1806(d)(3)(E)(i)) is amended by inserting before 

7 the period at the end the following: ‘‘, and for any suc8 ceeding fiscal year, the Secretary may increase the total 

9 number of such permits available by a number determined 

10 appropriate by the Secretary, at the request of the Gov11 ernor of the Northern Mariana Islands’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

DILLON M. SALVO, 

Defendant. 

8:23CR119 

ORDER 

 

 The defendant appeared before the Court on August 5, 2024, for a Change of Plea Hearing. 

Julie Hansen represented the defendant. Matt Lierman represented the government. The defendant 

entered a guilty plea and requested to be held in custody pending sentencing. The government did 

not object. Accordingly, 

1. The Order Setting Conditions of Release [16] is revoked and the defendant shall be 

detained until further order of the Court. 

2. The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designated 

representative for confinement in a correctional facility separate, to the extent 

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentence or being held in custody pending 

appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private 

consultation with defense counsel. On order of the court of the United States or on the 

request of an attorney for the government, the person in charge of the correctional 

facility shall deliver the defendant to the United States Marshal for purpose of an 

appearance in connection with a court proceeding. 

3. The defendant shall be returned to the custody of Nebraska state authorities. The U.S. 

Marshal for the District of Nebraska is directed to place a detainer with the correctional 

officer having custody of the defendant. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated this 5th day of August, 2024. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Michael D. Nelson 

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00119-BCB-MDN Doc # 95 Filed: 08/05/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 235
U.S. Department of Justice

United States Attorney

District of New Hampshire

Federal Building 603/225-1552

55 Pleasant Street, Room 312

Concord, New Hampshire 03301

February 20, 2008

Ann Mulvee, Deputy Clerk

United States District Court

District of New Hampshire

55 Pleasant Street

Concord, New Hampshire 03301 

Re: Rebecca Bilodeau

Mag. No. 04-108

Dear Deputy Clerk Mulvee:

Please accept this letter as a request to unseal the above-stated case. Ms. Bilodeau was

the subject of a material witness complaint issued by the Court on or around September 23,

2004. Although the material witness complaint and warrant was ultimately dismissed by the

Court, the matter remained sealed. Because there is no reason to continue to have the matter

sealed, the United States respectfully requests that it be unsealed.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

THOMAS P. COLANTUONO

United States Attorney

 By:/s/ Terry L. Ollila

Terry L. Ollila

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Case 1:04-mj-00108-JM Document 8 Filed 02/20/08 Page 1 of 1