alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Jory Lowrance, Appellant, v Thomas Coughlin, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

Kane, J. P.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, an inmate at Shawangunk Correctional Facility in Ulster County, was charged with violating prison disciplinary rules for his possession of money (see, 7 NYCRR former 270.1 [b] [14] [viii]) and for his refusal to obey a direct order (see, 7 NYCRR former 270.1 [b] [7]). Correction Officer G. McGrain filed a misbehavior report introduced at petitioner’s tier II Superintendent’s hearing which stated that petitioner was observed handling money during a visitation period with his family and continued to do so despite being ordered by McGrain to stop. McGrain himself testified that he observed petitioner in the visiting room handling either a quarter or a half-dollar and that after he directed him to cease, petitioner refused to stop. Petitioner denied the charges and his wife, testifying by phone, stated that petitioner was handling a medallion, not a coin, and was doing so in attempts to stop his child from crying. Petitioner was found guilty of both charges • and given 15 days’ loss of all packages. The determination was administratively affirmed and petitioner’s *pro se*CPLR article 78 proceeding, transferred to this court, followed.

The determination is confirmed and the petition dismissed. We reject petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report served on him was vague. The report clearly identified the "particulars of the alleged incident” and included "a brief description of the violated rule[s]” (7 NYCRR 251-3.1). Regardless of the report’s failure to identify the money as a quarter or a half-dollar, petitioner was well aware of the charges against him *(see, Matter of Vogelsang v Coombe,*105 AD2d 913, 914, *affd*66 NY2d 835). We also reject petitioner’s argument that his guilt is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The misbehavior report combined with McGrain’s hearing testimony were certainly more than adequate to support the determination *(see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith,*66 NY2d 130, 139; *Matter of Johnson v Coughlin,*157 AD2d 991). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claim of Hearing Officer bias, and find them meritless.

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without *758costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Weiss, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 06-cr-19-01/02-SM

Starr Parrish and

Douglas Fisher

O R D E R

Defendant Fisher's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 30) is

granted. Trial has been rescheduled for the September 2006 trial period. Defendant Fisher

shall file a Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than July 5, 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 1:06-cr-00019-SM Document 31 Filed 06/28/06 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: August 28, 2006 at 2:00 PM

Jury Selection: September 6, 2006 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

June 28, 2006 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Donald Feith, Esq.

 Donald Kennedy, Esq. 

 Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00019-SM Document 31 Filed 06/28/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Company's  Consolidated  Financial  Statements  as of  October  31,  1998 and is
qualified  in  its  entirety  by  reference  to  such   consolidated   financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                              AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                                           86,000
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 6,718,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    753,000
<INVENTORY>                                                   6,628,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             13,936,000
<PP&E>                                                          237,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               22,324,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         8,072,000
<BONDS>                                                               0
<COMMON>                                                     17,591,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 22,324,000
<SALES>                                                       4,815,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              4,815,000
<CGS>                                                         2,465,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 2,465,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              1,943,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               93,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 314,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      9,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             305,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    305,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      0.09
        

</TABLE>
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: September 11, 2014 517913

________________________________ In the Matter of JAMES R. MOORE, Appellant, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: August 4, 2014 Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, McCarthy, Garry and Rose, JJ.

__________ James R. Moore, Coxsackie, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Treasure of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Elliott III, J.), entered October 16, 2013 in Greene County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner's request for parole release. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a July 2012 determination of the Board of Parole that denied his request for parole release. The Attorney General has advised this Court that petitioner reappeared before the Board in July 2014 and was again denied parole release. Thus, the appeal is now moot (see Matter of Jackson v New York State Div. of Parole, 116 AD3d 1308, 1308 [2014]). Petitioner urges us to treat this matter as a habeas corpus proceeding and nevertheless reach the merits, but "the denial of parole may not be challenged-2- 517913

by way of a writ of habeas corpus" (People ex rel. Borrell v New York State Bd. of Parole, 85 AD3d 1515, 1515-1516 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 718 [2011]). To the extent that petitioner additionally attacks the legality of his sentence, his failure to name as respondent the "person having custody of" him renders any request for a writ of habeas corpus procedurally defective (CPLR 7004 [b]; see Matter of Wisniewski v Michalski, 114 AD3d 1188, 1190 [2014]; People ex rel. Backus v Broome County Dept. of Social Servs., 240 AD2d 786, 787 [1997]; see also Executive Law § 259-b [1]). Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, McCarthy, Garry and Rose, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000081100
<NAME> PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    2,294,532
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    207,433
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         263,222
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                             0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 394,722
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,159,909
<COMMON>                                       636,409
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      328,963
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            199,560
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,164,932
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           87,840
<PREFERRED>                                    125,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           920,549
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              52,900
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  68,405
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    8,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 732,283
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                3,159,909
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      841,208
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            56,776
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     646,842
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     703,618
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        137,590
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               8,020
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 145,610
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        57,438
<NET-INCOME>                                    88,172
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     11,337
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   76,835
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        87,824
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       52,393
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         278,555
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.21
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

MICHAEL EDWARD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.,

Defendant.

8:23CV216

TRIAL SETTING ORDER

This matter is before the Court following a planning conference held with counsel for the 

parties on July 12, 2024, before the undersigned magistrate judge and on the Joint Motion to 

Extend Amended Case Progression Order (Filing No. 51). In accordance with the matters 

discussed during the planning conference and for good cause shown, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Extend Amended Case Progression Order 

(Filing No. 51) is granted as follows:

1) The deposition deadline, including but not limited to depositions for oral 

testimony only under Rule 45, is extended to August 9, 2024.

2) The deadline for completing written discovery under Rules 33, 34, 36, and 45 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is extended to August 9, 2024. Motions to 

compel written discovery under Rules 33, 34, 36, and 45 must be filed by August 

23, 2024.

Note: A motion to compel, to quash, or for a disputed protective order shall not 

be filed without first contacting the chambers of the undersigned magistrate judge 

on or before the motion to compel deadline to set a conference to discuss the 

parties’ dispute, and after being granted leave to do so by the Court.

3) The deadline for filing motions to exclude testimony on Daubert and related 

grounds is extended to August 26, 2024.

4) The deadline for filing motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment is

extended to September 23, 2024. 

5) The Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled to be held before the undersigned

magistrate judge on March 31, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., and will be conducted by 

video conferencing. Video conference instructions are found under separate 

order. The parties’ proposed Pretrial Conference Order and Exhibit List(s) must 

be emailed to nelson@ned.uscourts.gov in Word format, by 3:00 p.m. on March 

24, 2025. 

8:23-cv-00216-JFB-MDN Doc # 56 Filed: 07/12/24 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 154
6) The jury trial of this case is set to commence before Joseph F. Bataillon, Senior 

United States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, Roman L. Hruska Federal 

Courthouse, 111 South 18th Plaza, Omaha, Nebraska, at 8:30 a.m. on May 5, 

2025, or as soon thereafter as the case may be called, for a duration of five (5)

trial days. This case is subject to the prior trial of criminal cases and such other 

civil cases as may be scheduled for trial before this one. Jury selection will be 

held at the commencement of trial. 

7) Motions in limine and motions seeking pretrial evidentiary hearings regarding the 

admissibility of evidence shall be filed no later than twenty-eight (28) days 

before trial.

8) Each party may file no more than five (5) motions in limine. Motions for leave to 

file additional motions in limine should be directed to the trial judge.

Dated this 12th day of July, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

s/Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cv-00216-JFB-MDN Doc # 56 Filed: 07/12/24 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 155
Exhibit 32.2



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350.
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Citizens  Communications Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended  September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Jerry Elliott, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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




/s/ Jerry Elliott
-----------------------
Jerry Elliott
Chief Financial Officer
November 12, 2003



This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been  provided to Citizens  Communications  Company
and will be retained by Citizens  Communications  Company and  furnished  to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT
32.4

Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18
of the United States Code

I,
E. James Ferland, Chief Executive Officer of PSEG Power LLC, to the best of my
knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of PSEG Power LLC on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the Periodic Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of PSEG Power LLC.

| | /s/ E. James
  Ferland   
| | -------------------------
| |                          
| | E. James
  Ferland       
| | PSEG Power
  LLC         
| | Chief
  Executive Officer
| | October 30,
  2003
### NUMBER 13

- 20

- 00 496

- CV



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN THE INTEREST OF C.M.D. , A CHILD

On appeal from the 24 th District Court of Victoria County, Texas

.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes

This is an appeal of the trial court’s order dated August 25, 2020 , terminating the

parental rights of S

. G . (Mother) and R. D . (Father) to one minor child , C.M.D

. On

September 23, 2020, Father submitted a pro se notice of appeal.

On September 23, 2020 and October 28, 2020, the Clerk of this Court notified

Father , in acco rdance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c), that we would

dismiss this appeal unless the $205.00 filing fee was paid within ten days from receipt of2 the letter. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(c). Father has not responded to either of the notices

from the Clerk or paid the $205.00 filing fee. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5, 12.1(b)

, 42.3(c).

O n October 26, 2020, t he Clerk of this Court sent another notice to Father,

instructing that this appeal was also subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within seven days from the receipt

of the letter, Father provided a reasonabl e explana tion for his failure to timely file a brief

, and the appellee is n ot significantly injured by Father’s failure to timely file a brief. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 3 8

. 6(a)

, 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c). More than seven days have passed, and

Father has not filed a brief or otherwise responded to the Clerk’s notice.

An appellate court may dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution or failure to

comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified

time. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3(b), (c). In light of the foregoing, and mindful of the expedited

deadlines and procedures that apply to parental termination appeals, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 28.4; T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN . 6.2(a), we conclude this appeal should be dismissed

. Accordingly, the appeal in cause number 13

- 20

- 00 496

- CV is hereby DISMISSED

for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a notice from the Court. See T EX . R.

A PP . P. 5, 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).

GREGORY T. PERKES Justice

D elivered and filed the 19 th day of November , 20 20

.
|                                                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                              |   | 2011   |   |   | 2010   |   |
|                                                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net Earnings (1)                                                  |   | $      | 11,363 |   |   | $      | 13,199 |   |
|                                                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted average common shares outstanding  (2)         |   |   | 6,866  |   |   |   | 6,858 |   |
|                                                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Common share equivalents relating to stock options when dilutive  |   |   | 3      |   |   |   | - |   |
|                                                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Adjusted common and common equivalent                             |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|    shares for computation  (3)           |   |   | 6,869  |   |   |   | 6,858 |   |
|                                                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net earnings per share:                                           |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|      Basic  (1 divided by 2)   |   | $      | 1.65   |   |   | $      | 1.92 |   |
|      Diluted  (1 divided by 3) |   | $      | 1.65   |   |   | $      | 1.92 |   |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Airline Pilots Association International

v. Civil No. 04-cv-331-JD

Guilford Transportation Industries, Inc.,

Pan American Airways Corp.,

and Boston-Maine Airways Corp.

O R D E R

 Defendants seek a protective order limiting materials

constituting trade secrets and confidential business information

to those lawyer and experts in the employ of plaintiff who are

involved in this litigation. Plaintiff is amenable to such an

order. The point in dispute is whether these employees are to be

barred from participating in any subsequent collective bargaining

or other representational activity. 

Plaintiff is a union. It has a collective bargaining

agreement with Pan American Airways Corp. and groups within the

other defendants may select ALPA as their union in the future. 

It is axiomatic that an employer has a duty to provide financial

information to a union only when it claims an “inability to pay”

for the union’s bargaining proposals. NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co.,

351 U.S. 149, 152-53 (1956). Defendants have not pled poverty in

that circumstance. 

Case 1:04-cv-00331-JD Document 124 Filed 12/14/05 Page 1 of 3
2

Clearly, plaintiff has the right to the financial discovery

sought. With thirteen lawyers and thirteen economic analysts

employed constraining the two lawyers and one or two analysts by

a Chinese wall and future representational activity for a

reasonable period does not unduly hamper plaintiff while

protecting confidential financial information. 

As a consequence the motion of defendants is granted with

two amendments which are to be incorporated in a newly submitted

Proposed Protective Order; the limitation on representational

work vis-a-vis any defendant expires on the earlier of (1) four

years from the date of the order or (2) any claim of an

“inability to pay” by any defendant. 

The parties are ordered to amend the proposed order

consistent with this order and resubmit it within ten (10)

business days. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: December 14, 2005

cc: R. Matthew Cairns, Esq.

 Julie P. Glass, Esq.

 Eric L. Hirschhorn, Esq.

 Marie M. McPartlin, Esq.

Case 1:04-cv-00331-JD Document 124 Filed 12/14/05 Page 2 of 3
3

 Marcus C. Migliiore, Esq.

 William G. Miossi, Esq.

 Joseph E. Schuler, Esq.

 Andrew W. Serell, Esq.

Case 1:04-cv-00331-JD Document 124 Filed 12/14/05 Page 3 of 3