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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Gary W. Howard

v. Civil No. 05-cv-277-PB

Warden, Northern New Hampshire

Correctional Facility

O R D E R

Pro se petitioner Gary W. Howard amends his petition for a

writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

challenging the constitutionality of his state court conviction

and confinement (document no. 7). The petition is before me for

preliminary review. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Proceedings (“Habeas Rules”) (requiring initial review to

determine whether the petition is facially valid and may be

served); United States District Court for the District of New

Hampshire Local Rules 4.3(d)(authorizing the magistrate judge to

preliminarily review pro se pleadings). 

For the reasons stated in my report and recommendation

issued simultaneously herewith, I order the petition served on

the respondent, but only as to Ground One of the amended

petition. See Habeas Rule 4. I have recommended dismissal of

Case 1:05-cv-00277-PB Document 10 Filed 10/28/05 Page 1 of 3
2

the remaining claims.

Accordingly, the petition shall be served upon the Warden of

the Northern New Hampshire Correctional Facility, who shall file

an answer or other pleading in response to the allegations made

therein. See id. (requiring reviewing judge to order a response

to the petition). The Clerk’s Office is directed to serve the

New Hampshire Office of the Attorney General by certified mail,

return receipt requested, copies of this order, the prior order

issued by this Court and the original and amended habeas

petitions and addenda thereto (document nos. 1, 4 and 7). 

Respondent shall answer or otherwise plead within thirty (30)

days of the date of this order. The answer shall comply with the

requirements of Habeas Rule 5 (setting forth contents of the

answer).

Upon receipt of the response, the court will determine

whether a hearing is warranted. See Habeas Rule 8 (providing

circumstances under which a hearing is appropriate). 

Petitioner is referred to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, which requires

that every pleading, written motion, notice, and similar paper,

after the petition, shall be served on all parties. Such service

Case 1:05-cv-00277-PB Document 10 Filed 10/28/05 Page 2 of 3
3

is to be made by mailing the material to the parties’ attorneys.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 28, 2005

 cc: Gary Howard, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00277-PB Document 10 Filed 10/28/05 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 4.16


 


English Translation


 


 


Supplement Agreement
No. 2 to Limited Partnership Admission Agreement


 


 


 


 


 


 


Huangshan Panjie Investment
Management Co., Ltd.


 


Jiangsu Su Xuan Tang
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 




    1


     


    

  


Party A: Huangshan Panjie
Investment Management Co., Ltd


 


Legal Representative:
LI, Ren Yong


  


Party B: Jiangsu Su Xuan
Tang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.


 


Legal Representative:
ZHOU, Feng


 


In view of Supplement
Agreement to Huangshan Panjie Investment Center (Limited Partnership) Partnership Admission Agreement signed by Party A and Party
B, agreeing that Party B make RMB 2,500 of capital contribution to Party A which be managed by Huangshan Panjie Investment Fund
LLP (“Fund”), and with the aim of rational use of the capital contribution, Party A and Party B herewith agree to reach
the following Supplement Agreement on the bilateral use, and distribution of capital gains


 


Article 1. Use of the
Capital Contribution


 


1. Starting from
the day when the Fund receives the capital contribution from Party B, the contribution must be listed separately on the Fund.
If the Fund needs to use the capital contribution for investment, it is subject to following processes for approval:


  


(1) The voting committee
of the Fund votes in accordance with the current procedures;


 


(2) Party A must obtain
written consent from Party B even when the voting committee agrees to make external
investment. If Party B continues make more capital contribution to the Fund, it shall subject to this Supplement Agreement.


 




    2


     


    

  


Article 2. Distribution
of Capital Gains


 


In accordance with the
stipulation of capital gains distribution on the Supplement Agreement to Huangshan Panjie Investment Fund LLP Limited Partnership
Admission Agreement, Party A will take 20% of the carried interest that Party B generates based on its the portion of capital contribution
to the Fund, and the rest 80% of the carried interest belongs to Party B.


 


Article 3. Legal Validity
of this Supplement Agreement and Others


 


This Supplement Agreement
will become effective immediately on the day signed by representative or authorized representative and sealed.


 


This Supplement Agreement
is in duplicate, one for each Party. Each of them has the same legal validity.


 


【The
remaining of this page is empty】


 




    3


     


    

  


[Signature page for the Supplement Agreement
No. 2 to Limited Partnership Admission Agreement]


 


Party A: Huangshan Panjie Investment Management
Co., Ltd (sealed)


 


Legal representative
or authorized representative (signature): Renyong Li (sealed)


 


Party B: Jiangsu Su Xuan
Tang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (sealed)


 


Legal representative
or authorized representative (signature): Feng Zhou (sealed)


 


 


4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<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>                                           1,512
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,262
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     26,948
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,639
<PP&E>                                           8,688
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 239,125
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,646
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   239,125
<SALES>                                         68,770
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                68,770
<CGS>                                           29,857
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,062
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,874
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,166)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (452)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (714)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    446
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,160)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.29)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.29)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>BASIC EPS BEFORE THE EXTRAORDINARY ITEM WAS $(0.18).  DILUTED EPS BEFORE THE
EXTRAORDINARY ITEM WAS $(0.18).
</FN>


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         547,137
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,031,541
<ALLOWANCES>                                 7,103,296
<INVENTORY>                                     46,228
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,569,497
<PP&E>                                         709,324
<DEPRECIATION>                                 399,925
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,908,579
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,642,760
<BONDS>                                        350,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  5,294,278
<COMMON>                                           588
<OTHER-SE>                                  (8,379,047)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,908,579
<SALES>                                      8,271,362
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,274,362
<CGS>                                            7,178
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,075,133
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                169,729
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            169,729
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   169,729
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03



</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

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

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-30702

Conference Calendar

 

ANNIE L. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KEVIN DUPUIS, Deputy, both individually 

and in his official capacity, BARTON 

PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC.; UNIDENTIFIED 

PARTIES; ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-602-B

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

February 13, 2001

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Annie L. Thompson has failed to comply with this court’s

September 5, 2000, order requiring her to submit within 30 days a

computer disk containing a copy of her appellate and reply briefs

for the purpose of confirming her certification that the briefs

comply with the page/word limitations under Fed. R. App. P. 32

and warning her that failure to comply would result in the

imposition of sanctions, including the possibility that her
No. 99-30702

-2-

briefs would be stricken. Accordingly, her briefs are STRICKEN. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 32(a) and 5TH CIR. R. 32.3. Her appeal is

DISMISSED. See Fed. R. App. P. 42 and 5TH CIR. R. 42.3.3.

BRIEFS STRICKEN; APPEAL DISMISSED.
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division  

                    Notice is hereby given that, on August 18, 2008, pursuant to Section 6(a) of  the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Information Card Foundation has filed written  notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade  Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed  for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of  antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.  Specifically, Wave Systems, Lee, MA; IDology, Inc., Atlanta, GA; ooTao,  Berkeley, CA; FuGen, Sunnyvale, CA; fun communications, Karlsruhe, GERMANY; IP  Commerce, Denver, CO; Fraunhofer FOKUS, Berlin, GERMANY; Ping Identity,  Denver, CO; e-backgroundchecks.com, Inc., Dallas, TX; A.T.E. Software,  Frankfurt, GERMANY; Parity Communications, Needham, MA; Daniel Bartholomew  (individual member), Kirrawee, NSW, AUSTRALIA; Privo, Vienna, VA; Gemalto,  Austin, TX; and Kim Cameron (individual member), Bellvue, WA have been added  as parties to this venture.                   

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity  of the group research project. Membership in this group research project  remains open, and Information Card Foundation intends to file additional  written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.  

                    On June 2, 2008, Information Card Foundation filed its original notification  pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a  notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act  on July 16, 2008 (73 FR 40883).                   

Patricia A. Brink, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. E8-21740 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]  

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-274-01-PB

 

Raymond Lemieux

O R D E R

The defendant, Raymond Lemieux, moved for court appointed

counsel to assist him in the pursuit of a sentence reduction

based upon the cocaine base ("crack cocaine") amendment to the

Federal Sentencing Guidelines implementing the Fair Sentencing

Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (2010) ("Fair

Sentencing Act") (document no. 35). That amendment was given

retroactive effect on November 1, 2011. Because there is no

reasonable probability that the defendant is entitled to a

sentence reduction based on this retroactive amendment, his

request for counsel is DENIED. 

The 2010 Fair Sentencing Act, by omission, prohibits persons

who received a career offender guideline sentence from receiving

a sentence reduction based upon the retroactive application of

the cocaine base amendment. Specifically, the United States

Sentencing Commission amended § 1B1.1, (Application Instructions)

Case 1:05-cr-00274-PB Document 36 Filed 11/03/11 Page 1 of 3
and adopted a three-step approach to determine the sentence to be

imposed. Under § 1B1.1, the court first determines the guideline

range and then considers any departures or variances. Consistent

with that approach, the proposed guideline at §1B1.10, comment

(n.1[A]) was also amended to reflect that "eligibility for

consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is triggered only by

an amendment listed in subsection (c) that lowers the applicable

guideline range (i.e., the guideline range that corresponds to

the offense level and criminal history category determined

pursuant to § 1B1.1(a), which is determined before consideration

of any departure provision in the Guidelines Manual or any

variances.)." The only exception to reducing the defendant's

term of imprisonment to a term that is less than the minimum of

the amended guideline range would be a sentence which resulted

from a downward departure pursuant to a government motion for

substantial assistance, which has no application in this case.

Thus, because the defendant received a career offender

guideline sentence, and that guideline was not lowered by the

2010 Fair Sentencing Act cocaine base amendment, he is not

eligible for a further reduction of his sentence. As a result,

2

Case 1:05-cr-00274-PB Document 36 Filed 11/03/11 Page 2 of 3
it would be futile, and an unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer

monies, to appoint counsel to pursue a sentence reduction on his

behalf. Defendant's motion to appoint counsel (document no. 35)

is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Date: November 3, 2011 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul J. Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Raymond Lemieux, pro se

Counsel of Record

3

Case 1:05-cr-00274-PB Document 36 Filed 11/03/11 Page 3 of 3
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-20884

Summary Calendar

_____________________

EDDIE L. BURNS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

K-MART CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-97-CV-250)

_________________________________________________________________

March 22, 1999

Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Eddie Burns, a bla ck male, contests the summary judgment in

favor of K-Mart, in which he asserted sundry claims of racial

discrimination under Title VII and the Texa s Commission on Human

Righ t s Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and

negligent hiring and reten tion. The parties consented to trial

before a magistrate judge.

Of course, we review a summary judgment de novo

, applying the

same standard as the district court. E .g.

, OHM Remediation

Services v. Evans Cooperage Co., Inc.

, 116 F.3d 1574, 1579 (5th

Cir. 1997). Such judgment is appropriate where “there is no- 2 -

genuine issue of material fact and

... the moving party is entitled

to a judgment as a matter of law". F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 56(c).

After being employed by K-Mart for approximately 25 years, and

having served as the operations manag er of one of its stores for

the final two years, Burns was terminated. The given reason was

poor job performance. He was replaced by a black female.

Burns posits racial discrimination in his termination

(claiming both discriminatory and retaliatory termination) and his

workplace treatment (promotion, assignments, duties, discipline,

and evaluations); maintains that K-Mart’s conduct was extreme and

outrageous; and asserts that K-Mart negligently hired and retained

Burns’ supervisors. Pursuant to our de novo review of the record

and our review of the briefs, except for the workplace treatment

claims, discu ssed i nfra

, summary judgment is proper, essentially

for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s opinion. S ee

Burns v. K-Mart Corporati on , No. H-97-0250, mem. op. (S.D.Tex.

August 26, 1998).

In that opinion, the magistrate judge granted K-Mart’s summary

judgment motion on all claims, but without specifically addressing

Burns’ workplace treatment claims. No doubt, this is because KMart failed to specifically address those claims in its motion and

supporting brief, notwithstanding seeking judgmen t “on all of

‘Burns’] claims as a matter of law....”

Accordingly, we remand the workplace treatment claims to the

district court so that Burns has the opportunity to respond to them

when presented properly. See F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 56(e).- 3 - AFFIRMED in PART and

VACATED and REMANDED in PART
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cash Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended February 29, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, being, Bruce Korman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Edmund King, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, respectfully, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 operation of the Company.



Dated: April 14,
2004



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Bruce Korman        |  |  |  | /s/ Edmund King        
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 28, 2011 

h1219 

Order 

 

December 28, 2011 

143607 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143607 

 COA: 296780 

ALFRED JOHN SHEFFIELD, Wayne CC: 09-022276-FC 

Defendant-Appellant. 

____________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 5, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JOSE EMMANUEL VACA-SALDANA,

Defendant.

8:23MJ233

ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE

DUE PROCESS PROTECTION ACT

This matter came before the Court for Initial Appearance on a Complaint. The government 

was represented by Martin J. Conboy, IV. The defendant was present and represented by Richard 

H. McWilliams. 

IT IS ORDERED:

Pursuant to the Due Process Protections Act, the Court confirms the United States' 

obligation to disclose to the defendant all exculpatory evidence as required by Brady v. Maryland, 

373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, and orders the United States to do so. Failure to disclose 

exculpatory evidence in a timely manner may result in consequences, including, but not limited 

to, exclusion of evidence, adverse jury instructions, dismissal of charges, contempt proceedings, 

or sanctions by the Court.

DATED: April 19, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ F.A. Gossett

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00111-BCB-SMB Doc # 12 Filed: 04/19/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 15