alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

MURRAY GARRETT,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.,

Defendant.

8:23CV244

FINAL PROGRESSION ORDER

(AMENDED)

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to extend case progression 

deadlines, Filing No. 27, is granted. The unexpired deadlines in the final 

progression order, Filing No. 12, are amended as follows:

1) The trial and pretrial conference will not be set at this time. The status 

conference to discuss case progression, the parties’ interest in settlement, 

and the trial and pretrial conference settings currently set for May 7, 2024 

is continued and will be held with the undersigned magistrate judge on July 

9, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. by telephone. Counsel shall use the conferencing 

instructions assigned to this case to participate in the conference.

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

45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is June 17, 2024. Motions to 

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

July 3, 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 to set a conference for discussing the parties’ dispute. 

3) The deadlines for complete expert disclosures for all experts expected to 

testify at trial, (both retained experts, (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)), and non8:23-cv-00244-JFB-JMD Doc # 28 Filed: 02/14/24 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 106
2

retained experts, (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C)), are:

For the plaintiff(s): February 5, 2024.

For the defendant(s): March 4, 2024.

Plaintiff(s)’ rebuttal: March 18, 2024.

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

testimony only under Rule 45, is June 17, 2024.

5) The deadline for filing motions to dismiss and motions for summary 

judgment is August 7, 2024. 

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

grounds is July 3, 2024.

7) Motions in limine shall be filed seven days before the pretrial conference. It 

is not the normal practice to hold hearings on motions in limine or to rule on 

them prior to the first day of trial. Counsel should plan accordingly.

8) The parties shall comply with all other stipulations and agreements recited 

in their Rule 26(f) planning report that are not inconsistent with this order. 

9) All other deadlines in the final progression order, Filing No. 12, remain

unchanged. All requests for changes of deadlines or settings established 

herein shall be directed to the undersigned magistrate judge, including all 

requests for changes of trial dates. Such requests will not be considered 

absent a showing of due diligence in the timely progression of this case and 

the recent development of circumstances, unanticipated prior to the filing of 

the motion, which require that additional time be allowed.

Dated this 14th day of February, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Jacqueline M. DeLuca

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cv-00244-JFB-JMD Doc # 28 Filed: 02/14/24 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 107
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.ss.1350),
the  undersigned,  David  Allen,  Chief  Executive  Officer and Chief  Financial
Officer of The Millbrook  Press Inc., a Delaware  corporation  (the  "Company"),
does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended April 30, 2003 of
the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the information  contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  June 23, 2003               /s/ David Allen
                                   ---------------------------
                                   David Allen
                                   Chief Executive Officer and
                                   Chief Financial Officer
```
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE 307TH DISTRICT COURT OF GREGG COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 12th 

day of February, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was 

determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

In the Interest of R.L.C., Jr., R.D.C., 

K.M.S., and A.M.C., Children

No. 06-14-00078-CV

Trial Court No. 2013-983-DR

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Amy Smith, has adequately indicated her inability to pay 

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 30th day of April, A.D. 2015.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
IA

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 56

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require

Members of Congress and the President to forfeit the compensation

paid to them starting at the conclusion of each fiscal year until all

of the general appropriations bills for the following fiscal year are

enacted.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 24, 2001

Mr. OSE introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to require Members of Congress and the President

to forfeit the compensation paid to them starting at

the conclusion of each fiscal year until all of the general

appropriations bills for the following fiscal year are

enacted.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
2

•HJ 56 IH

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

2 States within seven years after the date of its submission

3 for ratification:

4 ‘‘ARTICLE —

5 ‘‘The compensation paid to Members of Congress and

6 to the President shall be forfeited on a per diem basis at

7 the conclusion of each fiscal year until such time as all

8 of the general appropriations bills for the following fiscal

9 year are enacted.’’.

Æ
190 La. 517

#### STEIB v. OWENS.

No. 34848.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 27, 1938.

*661Carl A. Conrad, of New Orleans, for appellant.

L. H. Gosserand, of New Orleans, for appellee.

PONDER, Justice.

This is an action by a mother to recover alimony from her three sons. Two of them, residents of the Parish of Orleans, filed exceptions to the jurisdiction of the court ratione personae, which were sustained. The third son, a resident of the Parish of Jefferson, denied that he had refused to assist his mother, and averred that he offered to take her into his home or to pay her -$7 a month alimony, but she declined both offers. There was judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of $5 per month alimony and she appealed, asking that the amount awarded be increased.

The evidence shows that the plaintiff, an aged woman, is unable to work for a living; thát she' has no income except the $20 a month which her two sons, against whom the suit was dismissed, contribute to her support; that she has been a widow for fourteen years; that the family home left by her husband was subject to a mortgage, which, after his death, was increased $500 for the purpose of making repairs; and that later the house was lost through foreclosure proceedings.

The defendant is married, has two children and lives in the residence in which his wife inherited a one-fourth interest from her parents and he does not pay any rent but pays the taxes on the property; that defendant is a car inspector for the railway company and earns seventy-eight cents (78$) an hour, works eight hours a day and has averaged approximately $150 a month for the past eighteen months.

It appears that the plaintiff refused to make her home with defendant because of incompatibility with his wife and declined the contribution of $7 a month, because it was inadequate in comparison with the amount paid her by her other two sons, who each contribute $10 a month for her support, and whose circumstances are comparable to those of the defendant.

It is our opinion that the trial judge correctly held that the defendant was liable and that he could not compel the mother to reside with him and his wife against her wishes. We disagree with our learned brother below as to the amount he awarded and consider it inadequate under the circumstances. It is our conclusion that $10 a month would be fair and reasonable.

For the reasons assigned, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the district court be amended by increasing the amount of alimony awarded the plaintiff from $5 to $10 a month, commencing from the date set forth in the judgment of the lower court and payable on the dates therein designated; defendant to pay all costs of court.

ODOM and FOURNET, JJ., take no part. ' •
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-63,819]

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on August 6, 2008 in response to a petition filed by workers of Jakel, Inc., Murray, Kentucky. The subject firm stopped production on September 30, 2007.

The petitioning group of workers is covered by a previous certification (TA-W-59,714) which expired on September 2, 2008. The date of separation of the worker group was within the time period covered by this certification. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of September 2008.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-21836 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    Form 13F

                               Form 13F COVER PAGE

Report for the Calendar Year or Quarter Ended:  September 30, 1999

Check here if Amendment [    ]; Amendment Number: ____
    This Amendment (Check only one.): [    ] is a restatement.
                                      [    ] adds new holdings entries.

Institutional Investment Manager Filing this Report:

Name:      Tribeca Management, L.L.C.
Address:   388 Greenwich Street
           New York, New York 10013

Form 13F File Number:              28-6022

The institutional investment manager filing this report and the person by whom
it is signed hereby represent that the person signing the report is authorized
to submit it, that all information contained herein is true, correct and
complete, and that it is understood that all required items, statements,
schedules, lists, and tables, are considered integral parts of this form.

Person Signing this Report on Behalf of Reporting Manager:

Name:      Andrew E. Feldman
Title:     Secretary
Phone:     (212) 816-2464

Signature, Place, and Date of Signing:

/s/ Andrew E. Feldman          New York, New York      November 12, 1999
---------------------

Report Type (Check only one.):

[   ] 13F  HOLDINGS  REPORT.   (Check  here  if  all  holdings  of  this
      reporting manager are reported in this report.)

[ X ] 13F NOTICE. (Check here if no holdings reported are in this report,
      and all holdings are reported by other reporting manager(s).)

[   ] 13F COMBINATION REPORT. (Check here if a portion of the holdings for
      this reporting manager are reported in this report and a portion are
      reported by other reporting manager(s).)

List of Other Managers Reporting for this Manager:

Form 13F File Number 28-2427
Name:  Citigroup Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RIEK KUANY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 8:23CR107

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [34]. 

Counsel needs additional time to review the discovery and prepare for trial as well as to 

explore options to resolve the case without trial. For good cause shown,

IT IS ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [34] is granted, as 

follows:

1. The jury trial now set for November 13, 2023, is continued to January 16, 

2024.

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

justice will be served by granting this continuance and outweigh the interests 

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

as a result of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between today’s 

date and January 16, 2024, shall be deemed excludable time in any 

computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to 

grant a continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for 

effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv).

DATED: November 1, 2023.

 BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00107-RFR-MDN Doc # 35 Filed: 11/01/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 61
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 127 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 127

  To limit the total number of political appointees in the executive 
                       branch of the Government.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2001

  Mr. Luther introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To limit the total number of political appointees in the executive 
                       branch of the Government.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF POLITICAL APPOINTEES.

    (a) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``political 
appointee'' means any individual who--
            (1) is employed in a position listed in sections 5312 
        through 5316 of title 5, United States Code (relating to the 
        Executive Schedule);
            (2) is a limited term appointee, limited emergency 
        appointee, or noncareer appointee in the Senior Executive 
        Service, as defined under section 3132(a) (5), (6), and (7) of 
        title 5, United States Code, respectively; or
            (3) is employed in a position in the executive branch of 
        the Government under schedule C of subpart C of part 213 of 
        title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
    (b) Limitation.--The President shall ensure that the number of 
political appointees in the executive branch of the Government shall 
not, at any time after September 30, 2002, exceed a total of 2,000 
(determined on a full-time equivalent basis).
                                 <all>
```
U.S. DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven A . Swan

Plaintiff

NOV 18 2005

FILED

v . Civil No. 05-cv-401-JD

Paul J . Barbadoro, Celeste A . Ouimby,

William E . Morse, James W . Chapman, Jr .,

and Tom Coluntuon o

Defendants

TRANSFER ORDER

All of the judges in this District are recused from

presiding over this case . Accordingly, the case shall be

transferred to the District of Rhode Island .

SO ORDERED .

November /5", 200 5

cc : Steven A . Swan, pro se

Clerk, USDC, Rhode Island

Case 1:05-cv-00401-ECT Document 5 Filed 11/18/05 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

        Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Sanchez Computer Associates, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), eachof the undersigned officers, certifies, based on such officer’s knowledge,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

        (1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

        (2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
|   /s/  FRANK R. SANCHEZ                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
| Frank R. SanchezChief Executive OfficerNovember 14, 2003 |

 

 

 
|   /s/  TODD A. PITTMAN                        |
|---------------------------------------------------------|
| Todd A. PittmanChief Financial OfficerNovember 14, 2003 |

 

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Carmen Marquez-Marin,

Plaintiff

Civil No. 05-ds-247-SM (NH)

v. Civil No. 05-cv-1619-HL (PR)

Alberto Gonzales,

United States Attorney General;

and Humberto “Bert” Garcia,

U.S. Attorney for the

District of Puerto Rico,

Defendants

O R D E R

A telephonic status conference was held on April 9, 2007. 

Judith Berkan, Esq., and Mary Jo Mendez-Vilella, Esq., appeared

on behalf of the plaintiff. Assistant United States Attorney

Carole M. Fernandez and Assistant United States Attorney Marlene

Rodriguez appeared on behalf of the defendant.

Plaintiff will file a memorandum in support of her requests

for equitable relief (reinstatement, front pay, etc.), on or

before April 26, 2007.

The parties will discuss and endeavor to reach an agreement

with respect to an award of attorneys’ fees, prejudgment

interest, and costs. If an agreement cannot be reached,

Case 1:05-ds-00247-SM Document 41 Filed 04/09/07 Page 1 of 2
2

plaintiff will file a supported motion for attorneys’ fees, and a

motion for costs supported by a legal memorandum. The government

shall respond to motions filed on or before May 16, 2007.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

April 9, 2007

cc: Judith Berkan, Esq.

Mary Jo Mendez-Vilella, Esq.

Carole M. Fernandez, Esq.

Clerk of the U.S. District Court

District of Puerto Rico

Case 1:05-ds-00247-SM Document 41 Filed 04/09/07 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
 AmerUs Life Holdings, Inc.
 Exhibit 11 - Statement Re: Computation of Earnings Per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Three Months Ended
                                                              March 31, 1999
                                            --------------------------------------------------
                                            Net Income      Number of Shares  Per Share Amount
                                            --------------------------------------------------
                                              (in thousands, except per share amounts)

 Basic EPS
<S>                                        <C>               <C>                   <C>   
       Net Income                              $ 16,957          30,432,955            $ 0.56

 Effect of dilutive securities
       Options                                        -              36,718                 -
       Warrants                                       -                   -                 -
       Stock appreciation rights                      -                   -                 -

                                               ==============================================
 Diluted EPS                                   $ 16,957          30,469,673            $ 0.56
                                               ==============================================


<CAPTION>
                                                              Three Months Ended
                                                                March 31, 1998
                                            --------------------------------------------------
                                            Net Income      Number of Shares  Per Share Amount
                                            --------------------------------------------------
                                              (in thousands, except per share amounts)

<S>                                        <C>               <C>                   <C>   
 Basic EPS
       Net Income                              $ 21,757              34,735            $ 0.63

 Effect of dilutive securities
       Options                                        -                  65             (0.01)
       Warrants                                       -                  31                 -
       Stock appreciation rights                      -                   -                 -

                                               ==============================================
 Diluted EPS                                   $ 21,757              34,831            $ 0.62
                                               ==============================================
</TABLE>