alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BURCH v. MATHSON.

No. 6852.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Jan. 7, 1946.

A. A. Moss, of Winnfield, for appellant.

W. T. Holloway, of Jonesboro, for appel-lee.

HARDY, Judge.

Defendant-appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in this case on the ground that the judgment was signed on the 1st day of April, 1944, and the appeal was lodged in this Court on June 7, 1945. This point has been time and again decided by this Court, the most recent expression being in the case of Davis v. Davis, 23 So.2d 651, in which reference was made to what is regarded as the leading case, as decided by the Supreme Court, in Stockbridge v. Martin, 162 La. 601, 110 So. 828. In this case the clerk had neglected to transmit the transcript to the Court of Appeal for some two years, but it was held that the motion to dismiss on such ground was properly overruled.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is overruled.

Counsel for plaintiff-appellant has filed a motion to remand for the purpose of completing the transcript, and refers to a statement of the Clerk which satisfactorily explains the reason for the long delay in. lodging the appeal in this Court, and which also points out the fact that proper transcript has not been prepared, which fact is obvious upon examination of the record.

We feel it right and proper that the record be returned for proper completion.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the record be returned to the Clerk of the Eighth Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of Winn, State of Louisiana, for proper preparation of the transcript, and that, as completed, the record be returned to this Court within a period of not more than thirty (30) days for disposition of the appeal. Costs of appeal to await final determination of this cause.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 2, 2020

s1216 

# Order

Clerk January 2, 2020

160173

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 160173

COA: 349178

Calhoun CC: 2018

- 000865

- FH

WILLIAM LEE FINNIE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the Ju ly 9, 2019 order of

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jonathan Johnson, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Calabretta, J.), rendered August 15, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Shortly before trial the People were allowed to amend the indictment, which charged the defendant with robbery in the first degree, by deleting the language: “was armed with a deadly weapon to wit: hand gun or revolver”, and substituting therefor the language: “displayed what appeared to be a pistol or a revolver”. The defendant contends that this was error. We disagree.

Pursuant to CPL 200.70, the trial court is authorized to permit the amendment of an indictment, at any time before or during trial, with respect to defects, errors or variances from the proof relating to matters of form, time, place, names of persons and the like, provided that the proposed amendment does not change the theory of the prosecution or otherwise serve to prejudice the defendant on the merits *(see, e.g., People v Goodman,*156 AD2d 713). Here, the prosecution’s theory of the case was that the defendant had committed the robbery by displaying what appeared to be a gun *(see, People v Cepedes,*130 AD2d 676). Moreover, the amendment conformed the indictment to the evidence that was presented to the Grand Jury *(see, People v Fullwood,*107 AD2d 975), and accurately reflected the criminal act for which the Grand Jury intended to indict the defendant *(see, People v Goodman, supra).*Finally, the defendant has not shown that he was prejudiced in any way by the amendment *(see, People v Hartman,*123 AD2d 883; *People v Ames,*115 AD2d 543).

The defendant also contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during the course of her summation. However, insofar as defense counsel failed to object to some of those comments, the defendant’s claims of error are not preserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Tardbania,*72 NY2d 852; *People v Sidberry,*109 AD2d 807). As to the comment that was objected to, when viewed within the context of the trial evidence and *614the defense counsel’s summation, it cannot be said that the remark deprived the defendant of a fair trial *(see, People v Draksin,*145 AD2d 500; *People v Colon,*122 AD2d 151). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dennis A. Smith

v. Civil No. 05-cv-374-JD

N.H. State Prison, Warden, et al.

O R D E R

 Plaintiff moves to compel further documents in response to

his second request for production. 

Discussion

The motion (document no. 77) itself complains of many things

but does not point to a single request as inadequate. It does

have a February 21, 2007 letter attached which alleges the

following inadequacies: 

1. Request No. 2 - Nine individuals are named but

only six or seven histories (and one of those only one page)

were provided. 

2. Request No. 3 - The answer says that the state

sought to transfer Higgins and Burgess but provided no

detail about the “request to transfer” as to either. 

3. Request No. 1 - allegedly the answer as to Rose is

in error and plaintiff sought to have it corrected. 

Case 1:05-cv-00374-JD Document 88 Filed 05/22/07 Page 1 of 2
2

4. Motions to Amend and Supplement - (Document nos.

78, 81 and 82). Provide information detail on other

prisoners and/or file it with the court. 

Defendants acknowledge delay caused by their misfiling. 

Steps must be taken to tighten the AG’s procedures as the result

is unfair to prisoner litigants. 

Defendant does not object to 1, 2 and 3 above, all of which

are facially reasonable. The motion (document no. 77) is granted

as to items as I have identified them above. The detailed

disciplinary files, however, are not essential to plaintiff’s

evidentiary point and are appropriately withheld for sound

penalogical reasons where, as here, the essential information is

and will be provided. 

The motion (document no. 77) is granted and the supplements

(document nos. 78, 81 and 82) are denied. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 22, 2007

cc: Dennis A. Smith, pro se

 Andrew B. Livernois, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00374-JD Document 88 Filed 05/22/07 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         192,416
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,764,343
<ALLOWANCES>                                   247,780
<INVENTORY>                                    11,474,821
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               18,561,106
<PP&E>                                         1,749,553
<DEPRECIATION>                                 374,976
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 21,027,207
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          13,467,366
<BONDS>                                        623,685
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    15
<COMMON>                                       1,160
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,740,655
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   21,027,207
<SALES>                                        7,152,084
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          6,672,173
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,242,761
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             149,431
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                87,719
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            87,719
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   87,719
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.01



</TABLE>
Judd v. USA Doc. 9

Dockets.Justia.com
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         168,432
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,602,135
<ALLOWANCES>                                   380,000
<INVENTORY>                                 10,867,360
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,650,685
<PP&E>                                      79,546,101
<DEPRECIATION>                              33,288,245
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              82,587,868
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,593,242
<BONDS>                                     47,747,990
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        70,047
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,176,589
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                82,587,868
<SALES>                                     18,612,677
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,656,072
<CGS>                                       15,429,896
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,972,128
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             484,223
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (800,279)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   320,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            480,279
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (480,279)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        

</TABLE>
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1183

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at

113 South Main Street in Sylvania, Georgia, as the ‘‘G. Elliot Hagan

Post Office Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 22, 2001

Mr. KINGSTON (for himself, Mr. BARR of Georgia, Mr. BISHOP, Mr. COLLINS,

Ms. MCKINNEY, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. CHAMBLISS,

Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr. NORWOOD, and Mr. LINDER) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 113 South Main Street in Sylvania, Georgia,

as the ‘‘G. Elliot Hagan Post Office 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. G. ELLIOT HAGAN POST OFFICE BUILDING.

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States

5 Postal Service located at 113 South Main Street in Syl6 vania, Georgia, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘G.

7 Elliot Hagan Post Office Building’’.
2

•HR 1183 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall

4 be deemed to be a reference to the G. Elliot Hagan Post

5 Office Building.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 79 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 79

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 107-44 is 
further amended by striking the date specified in section 107(c) and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``January 10, 2002''; and by striking the 
date specified in section 123 and inserting in lieu thereof ``January 
1, 2002''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 20, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 79

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and 
                          for other purposes.
```
No. 01-15-00636-CR

In the 

Court of Appeals

for the 

First District of Texas

At Houston 



No. 1409330

In the 232nd District Court 

Of Harris County, Texas 



IRVIN NOTIAS 

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Appellee 



STATE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

IN WHICH TO FILE AN APPELLATE BRIEF 



TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS:

COMES NOW THE STATE OF TEXAS, in accordance with Rules 

10.5(b)(1) and 38.6(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and files this 

motion for an extension of time in which to file the State’s Brief in this cause, and, 

in support thereof, presents the following: 

ACCEPTED

01-15-00636-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

11/12/2015 4:14:52 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 11/12/2015 4:14:52 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
1. On June 30, 2015, appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery 

with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 40 years in the Institutional Division 

of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 

2. Appellant filed a timely written notice of appeal. 

3. The State’s Brief is due on November 12, 2015.

4. An extension of time in which to file the State’s Brief is requested until 

December 14, 2015. No previous extensions have been granted. 

5. The following facts are relied upon to show good cause for the requested 

extension:

i. The undersigned attorney has been engaged in the preparation 

of the State’s Brief in Cause No. 01-15-00226-CR, Weylin 

Wayne Alford, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee, which 

was filed on November 11, 2015. 

ii. The undersigned attorney has been engaged in the preparation 

of the State’s Brief in Cause No. 14-15-00740-CR, Russell Levi 

Pope, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee, which was 

filed on October 30, 2015. 

iii. The undersigned attorney has been engaged in the preparation 

of the State’s Brief in Cause No. 14-15-00251-CR, Derek 

James Strimban, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee, 

which is due to be filed on November 16, 2015.

WHEREFORE, the State prays that this Court will grant an additional 

extension of time until December 14, 2015 in which to file the State’s Brief in this 

cause. 
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Heather A. Hudson

HEATHER A. HUDSON

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 755-5826

State Bar No. 24058991

hudson_heather@dao.hctx.net

curry_alan@dao.hctx.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument has been submitted 

for service by e-filing to the following address:

Joseph W. Varela

2500 East T.C. Jester Blvd.

Suite 247

Houston, Texas 77008

(713) 957-0440

jwvarela@gmail.com

/s/ Heather A. Hudson

HEATHER A. HUDSON

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 755-5826

State Bar No. 24058991

Date: November 12, 2015
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALEXANDER W. HARLAN,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 8:23CR125

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [20]. 

Counsel needs additional time to negotiate a resolution short of trial. For good cause 

shown,

IT IS ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [20] is granted, as 

follows:

1. The jury trial now set for November 27, 2023, is continued to January 29, 

2024.

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 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 January 29, 2024, 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)(7)(A) & (B)(iv).

DATED: November 9, 2023.

 BY THE COURT:

s/ Susan M. Bazis

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00125-RFR-SMB Doc # 21 Filed: 11/09/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 39
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Consolidated Financial Statements as of October 31, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such consolidated financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                            AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                              OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                                         34,000
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              $4,277,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 $537,000
<INVENTORY>                                                $5,148,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           $9,656,000
<PP&E>                                                       $229,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                     $0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            $16,310,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      $2,761,000
<BONDS>                                                            $0
<COMMON>                                                  $17,591,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              $0
<PREFERRED>                                                        $0
<OTHER-SE>                                                         $0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              $16,310,000
<SALES>                                                    $3,971,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           $3,971,000
<CGS>                                                      $2,044,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              $2,044,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           $1,676,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   $0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 $0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              $251,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                       $0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          $251,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     $0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    $0
<CHANGES>                                                          $0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 $251,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0.07
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      212,243
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          31,722
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        33,516
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 277,481
<COMMON>                                         1,244
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       42,286
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             57,091
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 100,621
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            86,214
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              19,800
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    3,271
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  67,575
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  277,481
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      166,029
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             6,703
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     140,178
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     146,881
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         19,148
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 546
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  19,694
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         6,354
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,340
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        145
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   13,195
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         3,583
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        5,259
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          22,414
<EPS-BASIC>                                      10.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    10.61


</TABLE>