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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

MATTHEW TIMOTHY, 

Defendant. 

4:23CR3059 

ORDER 

 

Defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (Filing No. 

30), because Defendant and defense counsel need additional time to fully review 

the discovery. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set 

forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1) Defendant’s motion to continue, (Filing No. 30), is granted. 

2) Pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before March 14, 2024. 

3) The conference call previously scheduled to be held on February 20, 

2024, is continued. A telephonic conference with counsel will be held 

before the undersigned magistrate judge at 10:00 a.m. on March 21, 

2024 to discuss setting any pretrial motion hearing needed, a change 

of plea hearing, or the date of the jury trial and deadlines for disclosing 

experts as required under Rule 16. Counsel for all parties shall use 

the conferencing instructions provided by the court to participate in 

the call. 

4) The ends of justice served by granting the motion to continue 

outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy 

trial, and the additional time arising as a result of the granting of the 

motion, the time between today’s date and March 21, 2024 shall be 

deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the 

requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because although counsel have 

been duly diligent, additional time is needed to adequately prepare 

this case for trial and failing to grant additional time might result in a 

4:23-cr-03059-JMG-JMD Doc # 31 Filed: 02/13/24 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 51
miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1) & (h)(7). 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 13th day of February, 2024. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Jacqueline M. DeLuca 

United States Magistrate Judge 

4:23-cr-03059-JMG-JMD Doc # 31 Filed: 02/13/24 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 52
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 05-cr-170-01-SM

Linda Tremblay

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 28) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the January 2007 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver

of Speedy Trial Rights not later than October 3, 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 1:05-cr-00170-SM Document 29 Filed 09/26/06 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

NO FURTHER CONTINUANCES ABSENT EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.

Final Pretrial Conference: December 19, 2006 at 4:00 PM

Jury Selection: January 9, 2007 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

September 26, 2006 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Helen Fitzgibbon, Esq.

 Paul Maggiotto, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00170-SM Document 29 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 2
[No. 34159.

Department One.

October 31, 1957.]

#### Fae Maxine House, *Appellant,*v. The Department of Labor and Industries, *et al., Respondents.**1*

*Harry L. Parr*and *Parr & Baker,*for appellant.

*The Attorney General, Bernard A. Johnson, Assistant,*and *O’Leary, Meyer & O’Leary,*for respondents.

1

Reported in 316 P. (2d) 1094.

Finley, J.

This is an industrial insurance case.

On March 16, 1953, Walter W. House was injured during the course of extrahazardous employment. His claim for benefits was allowed. He received medical treatment and time loss from the date of injury to February 20, 1954. He died on February 25, 1954. At the time of the injury and until his death, he had a severe rheumatic heart condition and diabetes; he was under medical treatment for both. The autopsy verified the severe heart condition and indicated that his death resulted therefrom.

The department denied the surviving wife’s claim for a pension, but did pay time loss from February 20, 1954, to February 25th (date of death), and awarded the sum of $2,650 for permanent *partial*disabilities. The board of industrial insurance appeals sustained the department. The superior court for Thurston county affirmed on the authority of *Hiatt v. Department of Labor & Industries,*48 Wn. (2d) 843, 297 P. (2d) 244.

*232Throughout the above proceedings, and on appeal here, the surviving wife contends that she is entitled to a pension under the provisions of RCW 51.32.050(7) which reads:

> “If the injured workman dies during the period of permanent total disability, whatever the cause of death, leaving a widow, invalid widower, or child, the surviving widow or invalid widower shall receive one hundred dollars per month until death or remarriage, . . . ”

Appellant urges that 'her deceased husband was totally disabled from the time of his injury until his death; that in fact there could be no recovery because of his rheumatic heart; *i.e.,*that her husband’s condition in fact was fixed or static. From this it is contended that he was *permanently*totally disabled under the industrial insurance act, and that under the above-quoted statutory provisions, the husband’s condition entitled her to a pension rather than to the lesser benefits which were awarded by the department on the basis that the statutory status of the decedent was *permanent partial*rather than *permanent total*disability.

The argument advanced by appellant in the instant case was urged in the *Hiatt*case, *supra,*and was determined by this court adversely to the claim of the surviving wife. We are not persuaded that the *Hiatt*case is unsound and that it should be overruled. Since we deem the *Hiatt*case to be clearly controlling, the judgment in the instant case should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Hill, C. J., Mallery, Weaver, and Ott, JJ., concur.
#### The State, ex rel. The Bolan Construction Co., *v.*Department of Highways of State of Ohio et al.

(No. 24390

Decided March 7, 1934.)

*Mr. II. G. Busch, Mr. Smith W. Bennett*.and *Mr. Ralph E. Westfall,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. John W. Bricker,*attorney general, and *Mr. Thomas M. Miller,*for defendants in error.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said Court of Appeals be, and the same hereby is, affirmed on authority of *State, ex rel. Walton,*v. *Hermann et al., Commrs. Water Works of the City of Cincinnati,*63 Ohio St., 440.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Stephenson, Jones, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Matthias, J., not participating.
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than September 24, 2008.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis**                     (Glenda Wilson, Community Affairs Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:                

*1. Larry T. Wilson Descendents Trust and The Kathryn W. Roberts Descendants Trust to join the Wilson Family Control Group*, all of Jacksonville, Arkansas, and thereby acquire control of First Arkansas Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire control of First Arkansas Bank and Trust, both of Jacksonville, Arkansas.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 4, 2008.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E8-20881 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

JUAN MANUEL JAUREGUI PEREZ, 

and FERNANDA SARAY TOSTADO 

HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

LOREN K. MILLER, Director, Nebraska 

Service Center, U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, in his official 

capacity as well as his successors and 

assigns; et al.;

Defendants.

4:23CV3085

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED, 

1) The parties’ motion to stay this case pending the appellate ruling by 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Case 

Nos. 23-3378, 23-3379, 23-3397, 23-3520, and 23-3523, (Filing No. 

38), is granted. 

2) Within 14 days following the appellate ruling, counsel for the parties 

shall schedule a hearing before the assigned magistrate judge to 

discuss further case progression.

3) The Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of 

Nebraska shall set an internal case management deadline of May 

24, 2024, and close this case for statistical purposes.

Dated this 22nd day of November, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cv-03085-JFB-CRZ Doc # 39 Filed: 11/22/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 216
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION 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)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of the registrant certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that
the registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.

|Dated: August 13, 2003 | /s/KARI STEFANSSONKari Stefansson
Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer
|---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 13, 2003 | /s/LANCE THIBAULTLance Thibault
Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer         

---

QuickLinks
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

AVA SOLOMON,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ALLSTATE INSURANCE IDEMNITY 

POLICY 000000886169059,

Defendant.

8:23CV207

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, a non-prisoner, submitted her Complaint, Filing No. 1, via facsimile, which 

was docketed on May 22, 2023, along with two identical Motions for Leave to Proceed in 

Forma Pauperis, Filing No. 2; Filing No. 3. Upon review of Plaintiff’s Motions, the Court 

finds that Plaintiff is financially eligible to proceed in forma pauperis. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s initial motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Filing No. 2, is 

granted, and the Complaint shall be filed without payment of fees. 

2. Plaintiff’s second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Filing No. 3, is 

denied as moot.

3. Plaintiff is advised that although the Court accepted her Complaint and motions

she submitted by facsimile, pursuant to NECivR 5.1(c) of this Court “[a] document faxed 

or e-mailed to the clerk or assigned judge is not considered filed without a court order.” 

8:23-cv-00207-JFB-PRSE Doc # 6 Filed: 05/30/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 17
2

As such, Plaintiff is hereby notified that all future filings she makes into this case must be 

made via hand delivery, United States postal mail, or by registering for electronic case 

filing (“CM/ECF”) access. See NEGenR 1.3(b). 

4. Plaintiff is further advised that the next step in her case will be for the court to 

conduct an initial review of her claims to determine whether summary dismissal is 

appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court will conduct this initial review in its 

normal course of business. 

Dated this 30th day of May, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Court

8:23-cv-00207-JFB-PRSE Doc # 6 Filed: 05/30/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 18
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 Report of Puget Energy, Inc. and Puget
Sound Energy, Inc. (the “Companies”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I, Eric M. Markell, Executive
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 4, 2008/s/Eric M. MarkellEric
      M. MarkellExecutive
      Vice President andChief
      Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 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>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          23,119
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  114,957
<ALLOWANCES>                                       852
<INVENTORY>                                     24,842
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               222,172
<PP&E>                                         134,907
<DEPRECIATION>                                  75,550
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 300,374
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           86,989
<BONDS>                                         47,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,549
<OTHER-SE>                                     125,018
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   300,374
<SALES>                                        299,301
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               299,301
<CGS>                                          255,744
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  255,744
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,646
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,103
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,640
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,463
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,463
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.40


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________

No. 13

- 4274

________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JOHN DOE,

Appellant

________________

Appeal from the United States District Co urt

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal Action No. 2

- 02

- cr

- 00191

- 001)

District Judge: Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose

________________

Argued January 12, 2015

Before: AMBRO, FUENTES, and ROTH, Circuit Judges

SUR PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING

__________________________________

The petition for panel rehearing filed by Appellee in the above entitled case

having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court, it is

hereby ORDERE D that the petition for rehearing by the panel is granted. The Opinion

issued September 2, 2015 is hereby vacated. A new Opinion will be filed. Amendments

to the Opinion do not alter this Court’s Judgment as initially filed.

By the Court,

s/ Thomas L. Ambro, Circuit Judge

Dated: December 9 , 2015

cc: Rebecca R. Haywood, Esq.

Laura S. Irwin, Esq.

William C. Kaczynski, Esq.
1 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chie f Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-3385

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Alvaro L. Velasco, * District of Nebraska. * Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________ Submitted: June 26, 2008 Filed: June 27, 2008

___________ Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Alvaro L. Velasco appeals the 60-month prison sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute and distributing 50 grams or more of a substance containi ng a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(2). His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under A nders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For the following reasons, we affirm.-2- First, we conclude that the district c ourt did not plainly err in not applying a safety-valve exception to Velasco’s mandatory minimu m prison sentence, because-- although Velasco admitted the basic facts of his offense at his plea hearing--he stated that he was not seeking safety-valve relief, did not object to the omission of safetyvalve relief, and declined to participate in a safety-valve interview. SeeUnited States v. Guerra-Cabrera , 477 F.3d 1021, 1025 (8th Cir. 2007) (defendant must do more than disclose basic facts of crime to merit safety-valve relief); United States v. Pirani , 406 F.3d 543, 550 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (d iscussing plain-error review); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (listing requirements for defe ndant to qualify for safety-valve relief, including, inter alia, truthfully providi ng government all information and evidence defendant has concerning offens e); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a) (same).
Second, we conclude that Velasco’s prison sentence of 5 years, the statutory minimum, cannot be deemed unreasonable b ecause Velasco did notqualify for safetyvalve relief, and the government did not m ove for a departure based on substantial assistance. SeeUnited States v. Chacon , 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (noting that only authority for district court to depart from statutory minimum sentence is found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f), which apply only when government moves for departure based on substantial assistance or defendant qualifies for safety-valve relief); see also United States v. Gregg , 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), “does not re late to statutorily-imposed sentences”).
After reviewing the record i ndependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Ac cordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     BD
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BEDFORD
HOLDINGS, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               67,721
<RECEIVABLES>                                        12,937
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                     0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                                       0
<PP&E>                                               14,051
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      126,800
<SHORT-TERM>                                              0
<PAYABLES>                                              750
<REPOS-SOLD>                                              0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                        0
<LONG-TERM>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                             27,243
<OTHER-SE>                                       (1,726,657)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        126,800
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                  (154,401)
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                                    167
<COMMISSIONS>                                           314
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                             0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    4,637
<COMPENSATION>                                       62,236
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (394,519)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         (394,519)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (394,519)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.01)



</TABLE>