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-215-PB 

Christopher Stallings

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the September 6, 2006

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

address charges in a superseding indictment returned on August

30, 2006. Co-defendant Larry Stallings objects to a continuance

of the trial date, however the government does not object. 

For the above reason and to allow the parties additional

time to properly prepare for trial, the court will continue the

trial date from September 6, 2006 to November 7, 2006. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy

trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00215-PB Document 36 Filed 09/05/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on October 

 25, 2006 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 5, 2006

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Paul Pappas, Esq.

Donald Feith, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00215-PB Document 36 Filed 09/05/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Shawn Kierstead

v. No. 05-fp-432

Northern NH Correctional

Facility, Warden, et al.

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee. 

This case has been assigned civil number 05-cv-432-JD. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge 

Date: December 14, 2005

cc: Shawn Kierstead, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00432-JD Document 3 Filed 12/14/05 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

WILLIAM T. RADER, 

Defendant.

8:23CR119

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND 

PRETRIAL MOTION DEADLINE [32]. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should 

be granted. Defendant will be given an approximate 30-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be 

filed by August 14, 2023. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND PRETRIAL MOTION 

DEADLINE [32] is granted. Pretrial motions shall be filed on or before August 14, 2023.

2. The ends of justice have been served by granting such motion and outweigh the 

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The additional time arising as a result 

of the granting of the motion, i.e., the time between July 10, 2023, and August 14, 2023, shall be 

deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial 

Act for the reason defendant's counsel required additional time to adequately prepare the case, 

taking into consideration due diligence of counsel, and the novelty and complexity of this case. 

The failure to grant additional time might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 

3161(h)(7)(A) & (B).

Dated this 11th day of July, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00119-BCB-MDN Doc # 33 Filed: 07/11/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 67
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTEENTH DISTRICT, AT HOUSTON

No. 14-14-00993-CV

Samuel Joseph Jackson

v.

Paul Houston LaValle

(No. 2014-17352 IN 113TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

FILING

STATEWIDE EFILING

$175.00

$20.00

05/04/2015

05/04/2015

PAID

PAID

ANT

ANT

The costs incurred on appeal to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals Houston, Texas 

are $195.00.

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE, CLERK OF THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF 

APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing 

is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 

FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the 

above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness 

my hand and the Seal of the COURT 

OF APPEALS for the Fourteenth District 

of Texas, September 24, 2015.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 21
- 00563
- CV

In re Elusive Holdings, Inc.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Relator Elusive Holdings, Inc. has filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1 , 52.10(a)

. The Court grants Relator’s m otion for t emporary r elief

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(b)

. The Court temporarily stays , pending further order of this Court, the trial court’s September 2, 2021 order styled “ Order Granting Jacob White’s Application for Mandamus

– Books and Records ” in Ca u se No. D

- 1

- GN

- 19

- 005577; Elusive Holdings, Inc. v. Jacob White ; In the 53rd Distr ict Court of Travis County, Texas

.

It is so ordered on Decem ber 2 , 202 1

.

Before Chief Justice Byrne , Justices Triana and Kelly
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 3/31/00
RALSTON PURINA COMPANY BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         133,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  216,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,500
<INVENTORY>                                    129,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               487,500
<PP&E>                                       1,204,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                 598,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,045,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          795,700
<BONDS>                                      1,249,700
<COMMON>                                        32,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,156,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,045,700
<SALES>                                      1,419,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,419,100
<CGS>                                          567,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  567,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               391,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              91,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                369,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    96,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            286,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                  99,600
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   385,800
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.32
<FN>
<F1>LOSS - PROVISION INCLUDED IN OTHER-EXPENSE ABOVE
</FN>




</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-51306 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN COBIN MARTIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-9-CR-975-ALL-H

-------------------- December 19, 2001 Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

John Corb in Martin appeals his conviction for possession of

machine guns in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Martin argues

that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress.

In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress based on live

testimony, we accept the district court's factual findings unless

they are clearly erroneous or influenced by an incorrect view of

the law. U nited States v. Alvarez

, 6 F.3d 287, 289 (5th Cir.

1993)

. “‘Where the judge bases a finding of consent on the oral

testimony at a suppression hearing, the clearly erroneous standardNo. 00-51306

-2-

is particularly strong since the judge had the opportunity to

observe the demeanor of the witnesses.’” U nited States v. Kelley

,

981 F.2d 1464, 1470 (5th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v.

Sutton , 850 F.2d 1083, 1086 (5th Cir. 1988)).

There is nothing in the record to show that the district court

was clearly erroneous in finding that Martin was aware of his

rights and consented to cooperate for the purpose of securing a

civilian prosecution rather than a court martial, that no promise

of immunity had been made to induce the consent to search, and that

Martin’s decision to cooperate had been an act of free will. See

United States v. Garza , 118 F.3d 278, 282-83 (5th Cir. 1997).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Martin’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. S ee United States v.

Grant

, 117 F. 3d 788, 789 (5th Cir. 1997); U nited States v. Carr

,

740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984).

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21771]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1786-DR]


Louisiana; Amendment No. 3 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 Louisiana (FEMA-1786-DR), dated September 2, 2008, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 10, 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: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of September 2, 2008.

    Catahoula, Franklin, Grant, LaSalle, St. Helena, and Washington 
Parishes for Individual Assistance (already designated for emergency 
protective measures (Category B), including direct Federal 
assistance under the Public Assistance.)

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. E8-21771 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
#### ADA MILLING CO. v. ORR et al.

No. 6089.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

April 4, 1940.

*629Arthur C. Watson, of Natchitoches, for appellant.

John G. Gibbs, of Natchitoches, for ap-pellees.

DREW, Judge.

Plaintiff instituted this suit on a promissory note in the amount of $1,000, with *6%*interest thereon from October 14, 1936, until paid, less a number of credits thereon amounting to $302.38.

The defense is that, by the payment of money and services rendered, defendant has overpaid the note by $100, and reconvened for that sum.

The lower court awarded judgment on the note as prayed for, less credits amounting to $608.80. Plaintiff has perfected an appeal from that.judgment.

' It is admitted that the note was made and executed by defendant to plaintiff. The only question before us is how much credit defendant is due on the note.

A representative of plaintiff, who either keeps the books of the concern or supervises the keeping of them, testified that the credits set forth in the petition are all the credits due defendant on the note. However, defendant claims other credits, but his testimony is very vague and uncertain, and it was shown by his cross-examination that his memory was faulty. No doubt defendant was confused as to what indebted-nesses the payments ‘made by him were to apply. Besides the $1,000 note, he owed plaintiff an open account, and some of the credits claimed by him on the note had been given him on the open account. This is plainly shown by the receipts which he filed in evidence.

The briefs filed by counsel have not been a source of much help to us in arriving at the correct amount of credit due. There is no merit nor evidence to establish that defendant was entitled to any additional credits for drayage or hauling for plaintiff. We have studied his testimony carefully and are convinced he has received credit for all he paid to plaintiff and that it was credited properly, that is, what should have been credited on the open account was so credited and what should have been credited on the note was likewise credited there. We have taken all the receipts offered by defendant and separated them, that is, those which state “on account” from the others and we find that the amount of all credits on the note is $311.71.

It therefore follows that the judgment of the lower court is amended by reducing the credits allowed on the note from $608.-80 to $311.71, and as amended, the judgment is affirmed, with the costs of both courts to be paid by defendant.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-30712

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL NELSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 93-CR-55-1-A

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

December 13, 2000

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Nelson, federal prisoner #02461-095, requests a

certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal from the district

court’s denial of his petition for writ of coram nobis pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Nelson’s request for a COA is DENIED AS

UNNECESSARY. See United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 429 n.32

(5th Cir. 1998)

“The writ of coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy

available to a petitioner no longer in custody who seeks to

vacate a criminal conviction in circumstances where the
No. 00-30712

-2-

petitioner can demonstrate civil disabilities as a consequence of

the conviction, and that the challenged error is of sufficient

magnitude to justify the extraordinary relief.” Jimenez v.

Trominski, 91 F.3d 767, 768 (5th Cir. 1996). Because Nelson is

still in custody, he is not entitled to coram nobis relief. His

appeal is therefore DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v. King,

707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
Opinion issued January 14 , 2014.

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 13 - 00509 - CV

——————————— JOSE LUIS CARDENAS D/B/A J & S BODY SHO P , Appellant V. BETTY WILSON AND JEF FERY WILSON , Appellee s On Appeal from the 215th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2013 - 25987

O P I N I O N In this dispute over a pick

– up truck repair bill, Betty Wilson and Jeffery Wilson moved in the trial court that it review auto

– mechanic Jose Cardenas’ notice of intent to file a mechanic’s lien and set the lien aside. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 51.903 (West 2013 ) . The trial cou rt found that Cardenas’ lien was
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-79-01-SM

Jeffrey Edmunds

O R D E R

Defendant’s assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 7) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the October trial period. Defendant Edmunds has filed a

Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights

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-00079-SM Document 9-1 Filed 06/27/05 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: September 26, 2005 at 4:30 PM

Jury Selection: October 4, 2005 at 9:30 AM 

SO ORDERED.

June 27, 2005 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Helen Fitzgibbon, Esq.

Bjorn Lange, Esq.

U. S. Probation

U. S. Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00079-SM Document 9-1 Filed 06/27/05 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 179 (Monday, September 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21476]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6349]


Shipping Coordinating Committee; Notice of Subcommittee Meeting

    The Shipping Coordinating Committee (SHC), through its Maritime Law 
Subcommittee, will conduct an open meeting at 11 a.m. on October 14, 
2008, in Room 1422 of the United States Coast Guard Headquarters 
Building, 2100 2nd Street SW., Washington, DC, 20593. The purpose of 
this meeting is to prepare for the Ninety-fourth Session of the 
International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Legal Committee (LEG 94) 
scheduled from 20--24 October 2008 in London.
    The provisional LEG 94 agenda calls for the Legal Committee to 
examine the Provision of financial security, which includes a progress 
report on the work of the Joint IMO/ILO Ad Hoc Expert Working Group on 
Liability and Compensation regarding claims for Death, Personal Injury 
and Abandonment of Seafarers. The Committee will also address 
monitoring the implementation of the International Convention on 
Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage 
of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (HNS Convention) and 
development of a possible draft protocol to the Convention. Also on the 
provisional agenda are the Guidelines on fair treatment of seafarers in 
the event of a maritime accident, matters arising from the twenty-
fourth extraordinary session of the Council, the twenty-fifth regular 
session of the Assembly, and the hundredth regular session of the 
Council, and election of officers. Finally, the Committee will review 
technical cooperation activities related to maritime legislation, and 
the status of Conventions and other treaty instruments adopted as a 
result of the work of the Legal Committee, in addition to allotting 
time to address any other issues that may arise on the Committee's work 
program.
    Members of the public are invited to attend the SHC meeting up to 
the seating capacity of the room. To facilitate the building security 
process, those who plan to attend should call or send an e-mail two 
days before the meeting. Upon request, participating by phone may be an 
option. For further information please contact Captain Charles Michel 
or Lieutenant Amber Ward, at U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Maritime and 
International Law (CG-0941), 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20593-0001; e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8dcce0efe8ffa3dea3daecffe9cdf8feeeeaa3e0e4e1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="02436f6067702c512c5563706642777161652c6f6b6e">[email protected]</span></a>, telephone (202) 372-3794; fax 
(202) 372-3972.

    Dated: September 9, 2008.
Mark Skolnicki,
Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating Committee, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. E8-21476 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-09-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit  31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Frank Sanchez, certify that:

 

**1.             I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of Sanchez Computer Associates, Inc.**

** **

**2.             Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;**

** **

**3.             Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;**

** **

**4.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:**

** **

**(a)           Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;**

** **

**(b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and**

** **

**(c)           Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter  that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and**

** **

**5.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors :**

** **

**(a)           All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and**

** **

**(b)           Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.**

 

 

Dated: August 14, 2003

 

 
|   | /s/  FRANK R. SANCHEZ                  |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Frank R. Sanchez, *Chief Executive Officer* |   |

 

----