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-168-01-SM

Robert Shatney

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 22) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the June 2006 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver of

Speedy Trial Rights not later than March 31, 2006. On the filing of such waiver, his

continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account the

Case 1:05-cr-00168-SM Document 23 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: June 13, 2006 11:00 AM 

Jury Selection: June 20, 2006 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

March 22, 2006 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Helen Fitzgibbon, Esq.

 Jean-Claude Sakellario, Esq.

 Paul Garrity, Esq.

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00168-SM Document 23 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1087 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1087

To prohibit United States assistance for the Palestinian Authority and 
   for programs, projects, and activities in the West Bank and Gaza.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 2001

  Mr. Weiner (for himself, Mr. Souder, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. Bentsen, Mr. 
Berman, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Frost, Mr. McNulty, and Mr. Nadler) introduced 
      the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                        International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit United States assistance for the Palestinian Authority and 
   for programs, projects, and activities in the West Bank and Gaza.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE FOR THE PALESTINIAN 
              AUTHORITY AND THE WEST BANK AND GAZA.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, United States 
assistance (other than humanitarian assistance) may not be provided 
directly or indirectly to the Palestinian Authority (or to any 
successor or related entity) or for programs, projects, and activities 
to the West Bank or Gaza unless the President determines and certifies 
to the Committee on International Relations of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate 
that--
            (1) the leadership of the Palestinian Authority--
                    (A) has publicly renounced violence as a means of 
                political expression; and
                    (B) has taken all actions within its capacity to 
                bring an end to the violence which commenced in early 
                October 2000 in the West Bank and Gaza; and
            (2) the violence in the West Bank and Gaza has subsided.
                                 <all>
```
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Trinity Lynn Roberts

, * From the 35th District

Court of Brown County,

Trial Court No. CR19796

.

Vs. No. 11

- 11

- 00268

- CR * August 15 , 2013

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson , J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is

no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40033 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE MARIO BALLESTEROS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-95-CR-102-1

- - - - - - - - - - February 18, 1997 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Mario Ballesteros appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. He argues that the district court erred in refusing to order that his sentence run concurrently to an undischarged term of imprisonment under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b). The district court did not err in refusing to order that Ballesteros’ sentence run concurrently to his undischarged termNo. 96-40033 - 2 - of imprisonment. See United States v. Wittie , 25 F.3d 250, 260 (5th Cir. 1994), aff’d , 115 S. Ct. 2199 (1995).
AFFIRMED.
207 La. 408

#### LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASS’N v. STEINER.

No. 37634.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 19, 1945.

Benjamin Y. Wolf, Chairman, and Frank W. Hart, both of New Orleans, Hollings-worth B. Barret, of Shreveport, Charles A. McCoy, of Lake Charles, and Guy V. Rich, of Bogalusa, Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances, for Louisiana State Bar Ass’n, through Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances.

R. A. Dowling, of New Orleans, for defendant.

FOURNET, Justice.

Arthur A. Steiner having been made the defendant in a rule, issued on the petition of the Louisiana State Bar Association through the Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances charging him with misconduct, to show cause why his name should not be stricken from the record of attorneys and his license to practice law in this state cancelled, excepted to the jurisdiction of the court rationae personae on the ground that he is now absent from the state and that he is not now an active member of the bar, having been suspended for a period of two years beginning January 3. 1944, 204 La. 1073, 16 So.2d 843.

We have not been favored with any authorities in support of the defendant’s position, his counsel having failed to appear and orally argue the case or to file a written brief. It is our opinion, however, that the exception is without merit as we are not aware of any law that deprives this court of the jurisdiction granted it under Section 10 of Article VII of the Constitution of 1921 to try this case against the defendant for an act of misconduct that is entirely different and distinct from the one on which he was suspended and, as pointed out by this court in the case of In re Craven, 178 La. 372, 151 So. 625, 90 A.L.R. 973, substituted service of an absent attorney is authorized under the rules of this court passed in pursuance of such constitutional authority.

The exception is overruled.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1682

JOSEPH M. WILLIAMS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ENCOMPASS; CSX CORPORATION; AMR SERVICES

CORPORATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 97-1979

JOSEPH M. WILLIAMS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ENCOMPASS; CSX CORPORATION; AMR SERVICES

CORPORATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-563-5-BR)
2

Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: November 10, 1998

Before ERVIN and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph M. Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Bruce Cohen,

Agnes Maria Schipper, MOORE & VAN ALLEN, Durham, North Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although Williams’ appeal as to the district court’s order

disposing of these claims was interlocutory at the time of filing,

the district court’s entry of judgment prior to consideration of

the appeal confers jurisdiction on this court under the doctrine of

cumulative finality. See Equipment Fin. Group, Inc. v. Traverse

Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347 (4th Cir. 1992).

3

PER CURIAM:

Joseph M. Williams, Jr., appeals from the district court’s

order denying his motion for an extension of time for service and

motion to additional discovery,* and the court’s order granting

Encompass’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing Williams’

claims of age discrimination and retaliatory discharge. 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. Williams v. Encompass, No. CA-96-563-5-BR (E.D.N.C.

Apr. 30 & June 20, 1997). 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
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21668]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1763-DR]


Iowa; Amendment No. 20 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Iowa (FEMA-1763-DR), dated May 27, 2008, and related 
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 3, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the 
President's June 30, 2008, amended declaration authorizing Federal 
funds for emergency protective measures, including direct Federal 
assistance, at 90 percent Federal funding of total eligible costs under 
the Public Assistance Program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration's National Weather Service River Forecast Center has 
established that the rivers in the State of Iowa, which have 
experienced historical flooding, fell below flood stage on August 8, 
2008.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs, 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-21668 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

River Valley Fitness One LP

v. Case No. 1:06-mc-3-JM

Pierre Thibeault

O R D E R

Petitioner’s motion is untimely. See Fed. R. Bankr. P.

8002(a). Even if the motion is considered as a request to extend

the appeal period, it is untimely. See Fed. R. Bankr. P.

8002(c)(2). Additionally, “(o)nly the bankruptcy court, not the

district court . . . may extend the time for filing the notice of

appeal.” 10 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY § 8002.09[1]. The motion for

review and to extend relief is denied. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: January 17, 2006

cc: James W. Donchess, Esq.

 Pierre Thibeault, pro se

Case 1:06-mc-00003-JM Document 2 Filed 01/17/06 Page 1 of 1
#### BROWN v. HARVEY.

No. 7488.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

April 6, 1950.

Floyd D. Culbertson, Jr., Minden, for appellant.

D. W. Thomas, Minden, for appellee.

HARDY, Judge.

Plaintiff sued to recover the sum of $196.00 representing a cash loan made to defendant, which sum was alleged to be past due and unpaid. A default judgment was rendered in due course by the Judge of the City Court of Minden, Webster Parish, Louisiana, from which judgment defendant has appealed.

In view of the fact that counsel for defendant has not favored this court, either by oral argument or the filing of a brief, we are in doubt as to the grounds upon which the appeal is predicated. The only clue as to any particular specification of error which we have been able to discover appears in defendant’s petition for orders of appeal in which it is set forth that defendant was not properly cited. Examination of the record fails to disclose any substantiation of this objection.

On the basis of our examination of the record before us, we find no error in the judgment, and, accordingly, the same should be affirmed.

Counsel for plaintiff has filed in this court motions to dismiss the appeal, based on the insufficiency of the bond and failure to timely file same. However, inasmuch as we have reached the conclusion that the judgment should be affirmed, we perceive no need for a consideration of these exceptions.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant’s cost.
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 18, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00308-CV

LINDA J. TREZVANT, Appellant

V.

STEVE ZAMPRELLI AND KIMBERLY ZAMPRELLI, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1165967

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed May 26, 2021.

1

 The notice of appeal 

1 The underlying lawsuit was an eviction proceeding originally filed in the justice court 

and appealed for trial de novo in the county civil court at law. Appellees Steve Zamprelli and 

Kimberly Zamprelli requested a writ of possession and for an award of $2,433.00 in attorney’s 

fees. The county civil court at law rendered summary judgment directing the county clerk to issue 

a writ of possession and awarded appellees $1,250.00 in attorney’s fees. The “final summary 

judgment” contained a Mother Hubbard clause that “all other relief not expressly granted herein is 

hereby DENIED.” While the Mother Hubbard clause is insufficient to make a judgment final in a 

case that is not resolved by a conventional trial on the merits, the May 26, 2021 judgment 

nonetheless actually disposed of all remaining parties and claims, so it is a final judgment for 
2

was filed May 25, 2021, and thus is deemed to have been filed on the same day as 

the judgment. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 27.1(a).

Although the notice of appeal was purported to be filed by pro se appellant 

Linda J. Trezvant both on her own behalf and on behalf of Michael Trezvant, who 

did not personally sign the notice of appeal, a pro se party cannot file a notice of 

appeal on behalf of another person. Paselk v. Rabun, 293 S.W.3d 600, 606 (Tex. 

App.—Texarkana 2009, no pet.). The court notified the parties that the appeal would 

be dismissed as to Mr. Trezvant unless a response was filed on or before October 

11, 2021, showing meritorious grounds for continuing the appeal as to him. No 

response was filed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction as 

to Michael Trezvant.

As for Linda J. Trezvant, her brief was required to be filed on August 5, 2021. 

On October 5, 2021, Ms. Trezvant was warned that the appeal would be dismissed 

for want of prosecution unless she filed a brief with this court before October 19, 

2021. No brief was filed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as to Linda J. 

Trezvant for want of prosecution, thus fully resolving the appeal. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case because appellant failed to comply 

with notice from clerk requiring response or other action within specified time).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Spain.

purposes of appeals. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200, 203–04 (Tex. 2001).
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7082 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2200 North George Mason Drive in Arlington, 

Virginia, as the ‘‘Jesus Antonio Collazos Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 7082 EH

1 SECTION 1. JESUS ANTONIO COLLAZOS POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

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

4 Postal Service located at 2200 North George Mason Drive 

5 in Arlington, Virginia, shall be known and designated as 

6 the ‘‘Jesus Antonio Collazos Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Jesus Antonio 

11 Collazos Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 12, 

2022. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7082 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postnio Collazos Post Office Building’’. Drive in Arlington, Virginia, as the ‘‘Jesus Anto- al Service located at 2200 North George Mason
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary 

The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application. 

*Docket Number:*                     DOT-OST-2008-0268.                 

*Date Filed:*                     August 29, 2008.                 

*Parties:*                     Members of the International Air Transport Association.                 

*Subject:*

Mail Vote 004/08 and 005/08. 

Cargo Tariff Coordinating Conference. 

Composite Meeting, (Memo 0618). 

*Intended effective date:*                     1 October 2008.                 

Renee V. Wright, 

Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison. 

[FR Doc. E8-21435 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          14,026
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,664
<ALLOWANCES>                                        40
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,781
<PP&E>                                           2,928
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,804
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,796
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,869
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           110
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,485
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,796
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,586
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,107
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (684)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,163
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,043
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,120
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,120
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kendrick EPPING, Appellant.

No. 03-1472.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 5, 2003.

Decided Aug. 8, 2003.

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kendrick Epping appeals the district court’s1 imposition of a 10-month prison term and an additional 26-month supervised-release term, upon revocation of his supervised release from a bank robbery conviction. On appeal, he argues that the district court instead should have imposed inpatient treatment.

*609After careful review of the record, we find that the sentence was within the limits of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) and was not an abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Grimes,*54 F.3d 489, 492 (8th Cir.1995) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 25, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 25, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20I0115. STUBBS OIL COMPANY v. GLORIA JEAN et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

16CV65969