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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,539,297
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  401,064
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (342,508)
<INVENTORY>                                    102,168
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,041,937
<PP&E>                                         475,035
<DEPRECIATION>                                (323,924)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,306,355
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          323,237
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,380
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,977,738
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,306,355
<SALES>                                         55,450
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,450
<CGS>                                           44,018
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,018
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               463,779
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (34,831)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (417,516)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (417,516)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (417,516)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.08)


</TABLE>
CERTIFICATE



As required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, (as amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002), I certify that:



(1)         The Quarterly Report of Bedford Holdings, Inc. for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)          The information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Leon Zapoll



Leon Zapoll

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer

May 20, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

LEONIRES PEREZ-GONZALES, 

Defendant. 

8:23CR112 

ORDER 

 

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Deadline 

for Filing Pretrial Motions, (Filing No. 40). The motion is unopposed by the government and the 

co-defendant. For good cause shown, the Court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1) Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Deadline for Filing Pretrial Motions, 

(Filing No. 40), is granted. 

2) Pretrial motions shall be filed by September 20, 2023. 

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

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

public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising as a result 

of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between August 21, 2023 and

September 20, 2023, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time 

under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant this motion would 

deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into 

account the exercise of due diligence, and the novelty and complexity of the case. 

The failure to grant this motion might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B). Failing to timely object to this order as provided under this 

court’s local rules will be deemed a waiver of any right to later claim the time 

should not have been excluded under the Speedy Trial Act. 

 Dated this 22nd day of August, 2023. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Susan M. Bazis 

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00112-RFR-SMB Doc # 42 Filed: 08/22/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 92
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. 8:23mj251

ALEXZANDRA BLANCO, ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL

Defendant

Part I - Eligibility for Detention

Upon the

☒ Motion of the Government attorney pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1),

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)

☒ B. Rebuttable Presumption Arises Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3) (narcotics, firearm, other offenses): There is a

rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the 

defendant as required and the safety of the community because there is probable cause to believe that the defendant 

committed one or more of the following offenses:

☒ (1) an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more is prescribed in the

Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 801-904), the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 

U.S.C. §§ 951-971), or Chapter 705 of Title 46, U.S.C. (46 U.S.C. §§ 70501-70508);

☒ C. Conclusions Regarding Applicability of Any Presumption Established Above

☒ The defendant has not introduced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption above, and detention is

ordered on that basis. (Part III need not be completed.)

Part III - Analysis and Statement of the Reasons for Detention

☒ By clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure

the safety of any other person and the community.

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

defendant’s appearance as required.

☒ Subject to lengthy period of incarceration if convicted

☒ History of alcohol or substance abuse

☒ The current offense involves a controlled substance, firearm, explosive or destructive device.

☒ The mental condition of the defendant.

Part IV - Directions Regarding Detention

8:23-cr-00117-BCB-RCC Doc # 21 Filed: 05/04/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 46
Page 2 of 2

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: 5/4/2023 s/ F.A. Gossett

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00117-BCB-RCC Doc # 21 Filed: 05/04/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 47
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michael D. Cloutier

v. Civil No. 05-cv-163-JD

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner,

Social Security Administration

O R D E R

Michael D. Cloutier filed a complaint seeking judicial

review, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), of the Commissioner’s

decision denying his application for Supplemental Security

Income. The Commissioner moves to dismiss the complaint on the

ground that it was not timely filed. Cloutier, who is

represented by counsel, has not filed a response to the

Commissioner’s motion.

Section 405(g) provides that an individual may obtain

judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner “by a

civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him

of notice of such decision or within further time as the

Commissioner of Social Security may allow.” The applicable

Social Security regulation states that an applicant “may file an

action in a Federal district court within 60 days after the date

you receive notice of the Appeals Council’s action.” 20 C.F.R. §

416.1481. The sixty-day limitations period in § 405(g) must be

Case 1:05-cv-00163-JD Document 4 Filed 10/12/05 Page 1 of 3
2

strictly construed as a condition on the waiver of sovereign

immunity. Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 479 (1986).

Cloutier states in his complaint that he received the

Appeals Council’s denial of his request for review on March 14,

2005. He filed the complaint here on May 16, 2005. The sixtyday limit expired, however, on May 13, 2005. Although the

statute provides for an extension of time, nothing in the record

suggests that Cloutier requested and was granted such an

extension. Further, because Cloutier failed to respond to the

Commissioner’s motion, he has not raised a claim for equitable

tolling. Cf. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 125 S. Ct. 1807, 1814 (U.S.

2005) (“Generally, a litigant seeking equitable tolling bears the

burden of establishing two elements: (1) that he has been 

pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary

circumstance stood in his way.”) 

Therefore, the case is dismissed as barred by the statute of

limitations, § 405(g).

Case 1:05-cv-00163-JD Document 4 Filed 10/12/05 Page 2 of 3
3

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to dismiss

(document no. 3) is granted. The clerk of court shall enter

judgment accordingly and close the case.

SO ORDERED.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

October 12, 2005

cc: David L. Broderick, Esquire

Maureen Raiche Manning, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00163-JD Document 4 Filed 10/12/05 Page 3 of 3
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 7, 2017

No. 04-17-00329-CR

Brian FAZIO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR5284

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due October 5, 2017. After we sent a late brief notice, 

appellant filed his first motion for extension of time, which we granted in part. Thereafter, 

appellant’s brief was due November 13, 2017. Appellant then filed a second motion for 

extension of time, asking that we extend time to file the brief to December 2, 2017, which is a 

Saturday. We noted that in his motion appellant states this was a request for an additional fifteen 

days; however, it was actually a request for an additional nineteen days. Moreover, because 

December 2, 2017, was a Saturday, the brief was due Monday December 4, 2017, which was a 

total of twenty-one days from the actual due date. After review, we granted appellant’s motion 

and ordered him to file his brief in this court on or before December 4, 2017. Appellant has now 

filed a third motion for extension of time, asking for an additional four days, but requesting the 

date of December 9, 2017, a Saturday, which is actually five days from the current December 4, 

2017 due date. After review, we interpret appellant’s motion as a request for an additional five 

days in which to file the brief. We GRANT appellant’s motion and ORDER appellant to file his 

brief in this court on or before December 11, 2017 – given that the fifth day, December 9, 2017, 

is a Saturday. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a).

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 7th day of December, 2017.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Order entered July 24, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00280-CR

EX PARTE CHRISTOPHER RION

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. WX18-90101-L

ORDER

Before the Court is the State’s July 22, 2019 first motion for extension of the time to file 

the State’s brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS the State’s brief filed on or 

before July 26, 2019.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III 

JUSTICE
Amatucci v. Hamilton et al Doc. 3

Dockets.Justia.com
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7139 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7139

                    To codify Executive Order 13949.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2022

 Mr. Pfluger introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Foreign Affairs, 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 codify Executive Order 13949.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Removing Arms from Terrorists 
Through Sanctions Act''.

SEC. 2. ENACTMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 13949.

    (a) In General.--The provisions of Executive Order 13949 (85 Fed. 
Reg. 60043; relating to blocking property of certain persons with 
respect to the conventional arms activities of Iran), as in effect on 
September 21, 2020, shall remain in effect, continue to apply, and are 
enacted into law.
    (b) Publication.--In publishing this Act in slip form and in the 
United States Statutes at Large pursuant to section 112 of title 1, 
United States Code, the Archivist of the United States shall include 
after the date of approval at the end an appendix setting forth the 
text of the Executive order referred to in subsection (a), as in effect 
on September 21, 2020.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Arthur Lubin, et al.

v. 06-cv-103-SM

ET Transportation Services, Inc.

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated July 24, 2006, for the reasons set forth therein, no objection

having been filed. Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

September 5, 2006

_________________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Arthur Lubin, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00103-SM Document 9 Filed 09/05/06 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 182 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54138]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21882]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1572]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; Kravet, Inc.

(Textile Distribution and Sampling) Anderson, SC

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for ``* * *the 
establishment* * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for 
other purposes,'' and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant 
to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of 
entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results 
in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest;
    Whereas, the South Carolina State Ports Authority, grantee of 
Foreign-Trade Zone 38, has made application to the Board for authority 
to establish a special-purpose subzone at the textile distribution and 
sampling facility of Kravet, Inc., located in Anderson, South Carolina 
(FTZ Docket 10-2007, filed 3-6-07);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (72 FR 13081, 3/20/2007); and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations would be satisfied, and that approval of the 
application would be in the public interest if subject to the 
restrictions and limitations listed below;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone 
status for activity related to the distribution and sampling of 
textiles at the facility of Kravet, Inc., located in Anderson, South 
Carolina (Subzone 38G), as described in the application and Federal 
Register notice, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, 
including section 400.28, and further subject to the following 
restrictions and limitations:
    1. Privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41) shall be elected on 
all foreign status merchandise;
    2. No activity under FTZ procedures shall be permitted that would 
result in a shift in HTSUS classification.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of September 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
ATTEST:

Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-21882 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk gnature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

District of Nebraska

PREPARED FOOD PHOTOS, INC. f/k/a ADLIFE

MARKETING & COMMUNICATIONS CO., INC.,

8:23-cv-195

JAYJET ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a THE CADDY

SHACK SPORTS BAR & GRILL

JAYJET ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a

THE CADDY SHACK SPORTS BAR & GRILL

c/o Jay Johnson (Registered Agent)

2076 N 117th Ave

Omaha, NE 68164

Daniel DeSouza, Esq.

COPYCAT LEGAL PLLC

3111 N. University Drive

Suite 301

Coral Springs, FL 33065

05/15/2023

8:23-cv-00195-BCB-MDN Doc # 5 Filed: 05/15/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 28
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

u Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

8:23-cv-195

0.00

8:23-cv-00195-BCB-MDN Doc # 5 Filed: 05/15/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 29
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

LEONIRES PEREZ-GONZALES, 

Defendant. 

8:23CR112 

ORDER 

 

The court has been presented a Financial Affidavit (CJA Form 23) signed by the 

above-named defendant in support of a request for appointed counsel. After a review of 

the Financial Affidavit, I find that the above-named defendant is eligible for appointment 

of counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. §3006A, and Amended 

Criminal Justice Act Plan for the District of Nebraska. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

The Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska is appointed to 

represent the above named defendant in this matter. In the event that the Federal 

Public Defender accepts this appointment, the Federal Public Defender shall forthwith 

file an appearance in this matter. In the event the Federal Public Defender should 

decline this appointment for reason of conflict or on the basis of the Criminal Justice Act 

Plan, the Federal Public Defender shall forthwith provide the court with a draft 

appointment order (CJA Form 20) bearing the name and other identifying information of 

the CJA Panel attorney identified in accordance with the Criminal Justice Act Plan for 

this district. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall provide a copy of this order to 

the Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska. 

 DATED this 31st day of May, 2023. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Michael D. Nelson 

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00112-RFR-SMB Doc # 14 Filed: 05/31/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 39