alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Elizabeth Hotham and

David Hotham,

Plaintiffs

v. Civil No. 05-cv-464-JM

Quest Diagnostics, Inc.,

Defendant

O R D E R

All of the judges in this district were recused from

presiding over this case. Accordingly, the case was transferred

to the District of Maine.

The recusal of all of the judges on this court gives rise to

an “emergency” with respect to the transferred case as that term

is used in 28 U.S.C. § 636(f). I therefore concur in the

assignment of a Magistrate Judge from the transferee district to

perform the duties specified in 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(c).

SO ORDERED.

______________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

January 18, 2006

cc: Michael P. Hall, Esq.

Eleanor H. MacLellan, Esq.

Clerk, USDC, Maine

Case 1:05-cv-00464-JAW Document 10 Filed 01/18/2006 Page 1 of 2

Hotham et al v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc. Doc. 10

Dockets.Justia.com
2

Concurring Order

I concur that an emergency exists as specified above and

that for the duration of this case Magistrate Judge _____________

is assigned to perform such duties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(c)

as may be assigned to him by the District Judge to whom this case

is assigned.

______________________________

Chief Judge, Assignee District

Date:_________________________

cc: Michael P. Hall, Esq.

Eleanor H. MacLellan, Esq.

Clerk, USDC, Maine

Case 1:05-cv-00464-JAW Document 10 Filed 01/18/2006 Page 2 of 2
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 Puget Energy, Inc. and Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (the Companies) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Bertrand A.
Valdman, the Senior Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Companies,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date:
November 4, 2004                                   
|---------------------------------------------------------
|                                                         
|                                                         
|/s/ Bertrand A. Valdman                                  
|                                                         
|Bertrand A. Valdman                                      
|Senior Vice President Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
#### JOHNSON et al. v. LOUISVILLE FIRE & MARINE INS. CO.

No. 7516.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Dec. 5, 1950.

Leslie L. Lacroix, Colfax, for appellant.

J. Norman Coon, Monroe, for appellees.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

Judgment was read and signed in this case on February 17, 1950. On the same date orders of appeal, suspensive and de-volutive, on motion of appellant’s (defendant’s) counsel, to this Court, returnable on or before March 16, 1950, were granted. Bond was provided toy the appellant and the record reached the clerk of this Court on March 17, 1950, but was not filed by him until March 22, 1950, because the filing fee of Five Dollars, required under the rules of the Court, was not deposited with the clerk until that date.

Motion has been filed by appellees, praying for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the record was not filed here on or prior to the return day, nor within the three days of grace thereafter.

Appellant, without brief on its behalf, has, so far as concerns it, submitted the motion on the face of the record. The motion will have to be sustained.

The identical question here tendered has been passed upon by this Court in two cases, viz: Varnell et al. v. Babin, La.App., 13 So.2d 495, and Danna v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Company et al, La.App., 154 So. 365. In this latter case the ruling therein received the approval of the Supreme Court. In each case we held, as reflected from the syllabi in the Varnell case, that: “Where transcript was not filed before expiration of three-day grace period after return date for failure of appellant to timely deposit filing fee, fault for delay was solely imputable .to appellant and appeal was dismissed. Rules of Court of Appeal, rule 10.”

It is not intimated nor suggested that the failure to make timely deposit of the filing fee should be attributed to anyone other than the appellant.

For the reasons herein assigned, the appeal herein is dismissed at appellant’s cost.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE,

Respondent

v.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 662 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30 th day of March, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED

. The issue, as stated by petitione r is:

Does a reviewing court abuse its discretion by remanding a RTKL appeal to the

OOR for additional fact

- finding where: (i) the reviewing court concludes that the agency has failed to meet its burden of proving the applicability of the only R TK L exception at issue in the case; (ii) the agency has never requested addition al fact

finding or identified additional facts that, if added to the record, would support application of that RTKL exception; and (iii) there is no fact in dispute other than the ultimate question whether the record at issue is exempt from disclosure unde r the RTKL?

The Applications for Leave to Appear as Amicus Curiae in favor of Allowance of

Appeal submitted by (i) the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association and (ii) the Alliance for

Police Accountability, the National Police Accountability Project, and the Thomas Merton

Center are hereby DENIED as moot.
#### Gregory Jodko, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, *276Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated August 2, 1988, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The plaintiff was injured when he dove into a pool which was owned, operated and maintained by the defendant City of New York. He alleges that the city is liable for his injuries because the pool in question was designed and maintained so as to appear deeper than it actually was, and because the city failed to take reasonable steps in order to warn the public that the pool was not as deep as it seemed.

The defendant city made a motion for summary judgment on the ground that any alleged negligence on its part was not a proximate cause of the accident. Relying on the decisions of the Court of Appeals in *Boltax v Joy Day Camp*(67 NY2d 617) and *Smith v Stark*(67 NY2d 693), the city argued that, as a matter of law, a pool owner has no liability where "the plaintiff knew or should have known of the risks and the foreseeable consequences of his reckless acts”. The Supreme Court, accepting this argument, granted the city’s motion for summary judgment. We reverse.

The city did not produce any evidence that the plaintiff actually knew of the depth of the water into which he dove, nor did it produce evidence sufficient to justify a conclusion that, as a matter of law, a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position should have known of the depth of the water at the location of his dive. Under these circumstances, summary judgment is not warranted *(see, Ziecker v Town of Orchard Park, 75*NY2d 761, 762; *Denkensohn v Davenport, 75*NY2d 25; *Kriz v Schum, 75*NY2d 25; *Porter v City of Peekskill,*161 AD2d 569; *cf., Howard v Poseidon Pools,*72 NY2d 972; *Manning v Manning,*72 NY2d 972). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.
#### Dawn Maureen EGAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patricia L. HAUFFMAN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-6824.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 21, 2003.

*291Dawn Maureen Egan, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Dawn Maureen Egan seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that her constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Egan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

GREGORY LOFTIS, 

Defendant.

8:23CR126

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Reinstate and 

Continue Pretrial Motion Deadline (Filing No. 59). The motion is unopposed by the government. 

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

IT IS ORDERED:

1) Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Reinstate and Continue Pretrial Motion

Deadline (Filing No. 59), is granted.

2) Pretrial motions shall be filed by January 2, 2024.

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 today’s date and January 2, 

2024, 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 26

th day of October, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00126-RFR-MDN Doc # 60 Filed: 10/26/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 107
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.21

AMSURG CORP.
SCHEDULE OF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SALARIES AND BONUSES

The 2005 base salary of each of our executive officers, as determined by the
Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors in accordance with the terms
and conditions of their respective employment agreements, the forms of which
have previously been filed by us, are set forth below. The 2005 base salaries
were effective as of January 1, 2005 for all executive officers other than Mr.
Coll, who became an executive officer of the Company effective as of February
28, 2005.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         2005
                                                        SALARY
                                                       --------
<S>                                                    <C>
Ken P. McDonald................................        $462,000
Claire M. Gulmi................................         288,750
Royce D. Harrell...............................         208,000
David L. Manning...............................         288,750
Frank J. Coll..................................         225,000
</TABLE>

The Compensation Committee has approved a Cash Bonus Plan for 2005. Pursuant to
the 2005 Cash Bonus Plan, employees of the Company, including the executive
officers, are eligible to receive cash bonuses based upon the Company's
attainment of certain earnings targets and other specific targets related to an
employee's specific area of responsibility, including surgery center profits and
new acquisition and development transactions, in each case as determined by the
Committee. For 2005, bonuses for Mr. McDonald and Ms. Gulmi will be based 50%
upon the attainment of Company earnings targets, 33% upon targets related to
surgery center profits, and 17% upon targets related to new acquisition and
development transactions, and bonuses for Mr. Harrell and Mr. Coll will be based
33% upon the attainment of Company earnings targets, 50% upon targets related to
surgery center profits, and 17% upon targets related to new acquisition and
development transactions. Mr. Manning is eligible to receive a cash bonus of up
to 25% of his 2005 base salary based upon the attainment of Company earnings
targets and up to 10% of his 2005 base salary based upon targets related to
profits for newly acquired surgery centers. Mr. Manning is eligible to receive
an additional cash bonus based upon the number of new acquisition and
development transactions completed during 2005. The maximum total bonus award
that executive officers can receive ranges from 60% to 100% of base salary for
2005.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

TRAVIS COX,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

BOARD OF PAROLE, OFFICE OF 

PAROLE SUPERVISION, OFFICE OF 

PAROLE ADMINISTRATION, NEBRASKA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL 

SERVICES, DANIELLE SANDERS, 

HEATHER TODD-ROBERSON, TOM 

VERPLANK, ROSALYN COTTON, LAYNE 

GISSLER, BOB TWISS, HABIB OLAMI, 

MARK LANGAN, DOUGLAS COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, MIKE 

MYERS, DOUGLAS COUNTY, STATE OF 

NEBRASKA, and WELL PATH,

Defendants.

8:23CV202

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On January 9, 2024, Plaintiff 

filed an Amended Complaint, Filing No. 40, while he was incarcerated in the Nebraska 

Department of Correctional Services’ (“NDCS”) Work Ethic Camp in McCook, Nebraska. 

According to the NDCS’ online inmate records, Plaintiff was released from custody on 

June 1, 2024, and is no longer confined at the Work Ethic Camp. See https://dcsinmatesearch.ne.gov/Corrections/COR_input.jsp (last visited Nov. 13, 2024). Plaintiff 

has an obligation to keep the Court informed of his current address at all times. See

NEGenR 1.3(e) and (g) (requiring pro se parties to adhere to local rules and inform the 

Court of address changes within 30 days). This case cannot be prosecuted in this 

Court if Plaintiff’s whereabouts remain unknown. 

8:23-cv-00202-JFB-PRSE Doc # 41 Filed: 11/13/24 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 143
2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff must update his address within 30 days. Failure to do so will 

result in dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff. 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to set a pro se case management 

deadline in this case using the following text: December 13, 2024: check for address.

Dated this 13th day of November, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00202-JFB-PRSE Doc # 41 Filed: 11/13/24 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 144
EXHIBIT
      32.1





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of MPLC, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does
      herby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The
      Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ended October 31, 2006 (the “Form 10-QSB”) of the Company
      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 Form 10-QSB fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.




Date: December
                15, 2006
            
            /s/ Robert
                Ellin
              Robert
                  Ellin, Chief Executive
                  Officer


Date: December
                  15, 2006
              
              /s/ Jay
                  Wolf
                Jay
                      Wolf, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial
                      Officer


A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Hypertherm, Inc .

V .

American Torch Tip Company

Civil No. 05-cv-373-JD

ORDE R

As the parties are aware, there were a voluminous number of electronically filed sealed

documents in this case.

It is not the usual or customary policy of this court to seal documents indefinitely . Given the

large volume of sealed documents filed in this case and the administrative burden associated with

a sua soonte evaluation of whether each document should remain sealed or made public, all

documents filed under seal shall remain sealed at this time. Any member of the public or media who

would like to obtain access to a sealed document shall file a motion to access with notice to the

parties in this case.

SO ORDERED.

Apri130, 2009 /s/,Ioseph A. DiClerico, jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 530 Filed 04/30/09 Page 1 of 1
**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 Puget Energy, Inc. and Puget Sound
      Energy, Inc. (the "Companies") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
      30,
      2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the "Form 10-Q"), I, Bertrand A. Valdman, Senior Vice President and
      Chief Financial Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




(1)  The
      Form
      10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Companies.











Date:
                August 2, 2005/s/Bertrand
                A. ValdmanBertrand
                A. ValdmanSenior
                Vice President andChief
                Financial Officer
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1243

To amend title 5, United States Code, to require executive agencies to pay

the premiums for health care coverage provided under the Federal Employees Health Benefits program for reservists in the Armed Forces

called or ordered to active duty for more than 30 days.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 27, 2001

Mr. KLECZKA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To amend title 5, United States Code, to require executive

agencies to pay the premiums for health care coverage

provided under the Federal Employees Health Benefits

program for reservists in the Armed Forces called or

ordered to active duty for more than 30 days.

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

•HR 1243 IH

1 SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF FEHBP PREMIUMS FOR CERTAIN

2 RESERVISTS CALLED OR ORDERED TO AC3 TIVE DUTY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—(1) Chapter 89 of title 5, United

5 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 8905a

6 the following new section:

7 ‘‘§ 8905b. Payment of premiums for certain reservists

8 called or ordered to active duty

9 ‘‘An employing agency shall be responsible for pay10 ing, for any employee who is a member of a reserve compo11 nent of the armed forces who is called or ordered to active

12 duty for a period of more than 30 days, the employee’s

13 share of the premium for health care coverage provided

14 to such member under this chapter during such period.’’.

15 (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such

16 chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating

17 to section 8905a the following new item:

‘‘8905b. Payment of premiums for certain reservists called or ordered to active

duty.’’.

18 (b) APPLICABILITY.—Section 8905b of title 5, United

19 States Code (as added by subsection (a)), shall apply with

20 respect to health care coverage provided to a member of

21 a reserve component of the Armed Forces—

22 (1) on or after the date of the enactment of this

23 Act; and
3

•HR 1243 IH

1 (2) on or after the date that is 10 years before

2 the date of the enactment of this Act if the member

3 was called or ordered to active duty in support of

4 military operations related to conflicts in Kosovo,

5 Bosnia and Herzegovina, or the Persian Gulf region.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dennis Smith

v. Civil No. 05-cv-374-JD

NH State Prison Warden et al .

ORDE R

On February 11, 2008, Plaintiff Smith forwarded to this Court 5 large envelopes of loose

documents. Pursuant to Court Order dated February 26, 2008, the court addressed these documents

and ordered the plaintiff to inform this Court of the name and address of the person who has agreed

to accept these documents as the court had declined to act as a depository of these "discovery"

materials. On March 10, 2008, Plaintiff Smith responded to the Court order, however, no name nor

address was provided.

Wherein a Mandate has been issued on plaintiff's appeal, the discovery materials are

herewith ordered to be returned to Plaintiff Smith.

SO ORDERED.

November 20, 2008 /s/JosephA. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: Dennis Smith, pro se

Danielle Leah Pacik, Esq .

Case 1:05-cv-00374-JD Document 129 Filed 11/20/08 Page 1 of 1