alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SEAGULL GASOLINE CO., Inc., v. TIEUEL.

No. 4245.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, Second Division.

May 4, 1932.

Malcolm W. Feist, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Wilson & Abramson, of Shreveport, for ap-pellee.

STEPHENS, J.

The plaintiff sued and obtained judgment against the defendant in the sum of $1,081. The defendant was granted orders of suspen-sive and devolutive appeal. After the transcript had been lodged in this court, the law firm of Wilson & Abramson, which had represented the plaintiff in the trial court, appeared and obtained an order, founded on the averment that it had secured an assignment of the judgment from the plaintiff, substituting itself as party plaintiff-appellee.

The substituted appellee then moved to dismiss the appeal, and was met with an exception of no cause of action, filed by the appellant, founded on article 2447 of the Civil Code: “Public officers connected with courts of justice, such as judges, advocates, attorneys, clerks and sheriffs, can not purchase litigious rights, which fall under the jurisdiction of the tribunal in which they exercise their functions, under penalty of nullity, and of having to defray all costs, damages and interest.”

Clearly, the partnership of Wilson & Abram-son has purchased a litigious right, in the meaning of the article of the Code, and said purchase is a nullity. State v. Nix, 135 La. 811, 66 So. 230; New Orleans Gas Light Co. v. Webb, 7 La. Ann. 164; Watterston v. Webb, 4 La. Ann. 173; Pipes v. Norsworthy, 25 La. Ann. 557; Stafford v. National Fire Insurance Co., 164 La. 409, 114 So. 78; Illg & Valentino v. Regan, 166 La. 70, 116 So. 673.

The exception of no cause of action is therefore sustained; the order substituting Wilson & Abramson as party plaintiff-appellee is recalled and set aside; the original plaintiff-appellee is reinstated in that capacity, and the case is ordered returned to the calendar of this court for further proceedings, according to law.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          18,509
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,069
<ALLOWANCES>                                       313
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,267
<PP&E>                                           5,096
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,670
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  39,197
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,632
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           117
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,706
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    39,197
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,795
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,513
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (636)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,918
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,271
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,647
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,647
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-14-01-JD

Juan J. Aldea

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

19) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. 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. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: July 2, 2007

cc: Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Mark Irish, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00014-JD Document 20 Filed 07/02/07 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

RIEK J. KUANY,

Defendant.

8:23CR107

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Pretrial 

Motions (Filing No. 31). 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 Motion for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Motions (Filing 

No. 31), is granted.

2) Pretrial motions shall be filed by October 6, 2023.

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 September 8, 2023, and 

October 6, 2023, 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 8

th day of September, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00107-RFR-MDN Doc # 32 Filed: 09/08/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 54
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-11719

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20879-FAM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILSON ANTONIO CHAVERRA GONZALEZ, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(August 26, 2016)

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 15-11719 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Wilson Antonio Chaverra Gonzalez appeals pro se the denial of his motion 

to reduce his sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c)(2), under Amendment 782 of the 

Sentencing Guidelines. Gonzalez argues that the district court erroneously 

determined that it lacked the authority to reduce his sentence because his sentence 

had been reduced earlier based on a motion to reduce for substantial assistance

filed by the government, Fed. R. Crim. P. 35. He also argues that the district court 

abused its discretion because it failed to weigh the relevant sentencing factors, 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a), in denying his motion. We affirm.

We review a denial of a motion to reduce a sentence under section 3582(c)

de novo. United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789, 792 (11th Cir. 2009). And we may 

affirm on any ground supported by the record. United States v. Acuna-Reyna, 677 

F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2012). 

A district court may reduce the sentence of a prisoner who was sentenced to 

a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has been lowered by the 

Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Where an amendment does not 

lower a prisoner’s applicable guideline range, section 3582(c) affords the prisoner 

no relief. Id.; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).

Although, as the government concedes, the district court erred when it

determined that it lacked the authority to reduce Gonzalez’s sentence because his 

sentence had been reduced earlier under Rule 35 for substantial assistance, see 

Case: 15-11719 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Page: 2 of 3 
3

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B), (c), we affirm the denial of Gonzalez’s motion 

because he is ineligible to have his sentence reduced under section 3582(c). 

Gonzalez was held accountable at sentencing for 911 kilograms of cocaine, which 

still results in a base offense level of 38. Amendment 782 did not lower his 

guideline range. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-11719 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Page: 3 of 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ISHMAIL MYRICK,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 173 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of September, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.2
 ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING TRUST
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
AND PREFERRED UNIT DISTRIBUTIONS
 (Dollar amounts in thousands)
 (Unaudited)
 Six Months EndedJune 30,
    
    
    Twelve Months Ended December 31,2005(1)
    
    
    2004(1)
    
    
    2004(1)
    
    
    2003(1)
    
    
    2002(1)
    
    
    2001(1)
    
    
    2000(1)Earnings from operations
    
    $
    38,774
    
    
    $
    70,028
    
    
    $
    122,577
    
    
    $
    122,050
    
    
    $
    126,934
    
    
    $
    105,659
    
    
    $
    118,075Add:Interest expense
    
    
    93,826
    
    
    
    74,265
    
    
    
    160,244
    
    
    
    137,449
    
    
    
    138,993
    
    
    
    71,950
    
    
    
    92,353Earnings as adjusted
    
    $
    132,600
    
    
    $
    144,293
    
    
    $
    282,821
    
    
    $
    259,499
    
    
    $
    265,927
    
    
    $
    177,609
    
    
    $
    210,428Combined fixed charges and Preferred Unit distributions:Interest expense
    
    $
    93,826
    
    
    $
    74,265
    
    
    $
    160,244
    
    
    $
    137,449
    
    
    $
    138,993
    
    
    $
    71,950
    
    
    $
    92,353Capitalized interest
    
    
    17,482
    
    
    
    11,347
    
    
    
    23,572
    
    
    
    26,854
    
    
    
    32,377
    
    
    
    29,186
    
    
    
    37,079Total fixed charges
    
    
    111,308
    
    
    
    85,612
    
    
    
    183,816
    
    
    
    164,303
    
    
    
    171,370
    
    
    
    101,136
    
    
    
    129,432Preferred Unit distributions
    
    
    2,656
    
    
    
    8,906
    
    
    
    16,254
    
    
    
    26,153
    
    
    
    34,309
    
    
    
    25,877
    
    
    
    25,340Combined fixed charges and Preferred Unit distributions
    
    $
    113,964
    
    
    $
    94,518
    
    
    $
    200,070
    
    
    $
    190,456
    
    
    $
    205,679
    
    
    $
    127,013
    
    
    $
    154,772Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and
Preferred Unit distributions
    
    
    1.2
    
    
    
    1.5
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.3
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.4
 (1)
    
    Net earnings from discontinued operations have been reclassified for all periods
presented.
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 the Treasury

Under the authority granted to me as Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service by the General Counsel of the Department of the Treasury by General Counsel Order No. 21 (Rev. 4), pursuant to the Civil Service Reform Act, I have appointed the following persons to the Legal Division Performance Review Board, Internal Revenue Service Panel: 

1. Chairperson, Karen Gilbreath-Sowell, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy (Department of Treasury) 

2. Steve T. Miller, Commissioner (Tax Exempt and Government Entities)

3. Stephen Albrecht, Acting Deputy General Counsel (Department of Treasury) 

This publication is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). 

Dated: August 15, 2008. 

Donald L. Korb, 

Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service. 

[FR Doc. E8-21577 Filed 9-15-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
**
**Exhibit 31.2**

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

I, Christine T. Komola, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Covetrus, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 
Date: March 29, 2019 
/s/ Christine T. Komola
 Name: Christine T. Komola Title: 
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

(Principal Financial And Accounting Officer)
 **
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Beckwith Builders, Inc.

v. Civil No. 04-cv-282-SM

William Depietri, FNU Depietri,

Wood & Clay, Inc., and

Battle Associates, Inc.

O R D E R

Re: (Document No. 37) Motion for Protective Order

Ruling: Motion denied for failure to show good cause. The

motion seeks a protective order broader in scope than is

justified under the circumstances, both with respect to access to

documents for purposes of litigation and limitations on

admissibility of disclosed information at trial.

_____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

Date: August 5, 2005

cc: Paul M. Monzione, Esq.

V. Richards Ward, Jr., Esq.

William Pezzoni, Esq.

Michael J. Persson, Esq.

Benjamin R. Sigel, Esq.

Jay S. Gregory, Esq.

Jeffrey L. Alitz, Esq.

Case 1:04-cv-00282-SM Document 45 Filed 08/05/05 Page 1 of 1
111 South 18th Plaza, Suite 1152, Omaha, NE 68102-1322 

 Omaha: (402) 661-7350 Fax: (402) 661-7387 Toll Free: (866) 220-4381 

Lincoln: (402) 437-1900 Fax: (402) 437-1911 Toll Free: (866) 220-4379 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

Denise M. Lucks OFFICE OF THE CLERK Gabriela Acosta 

Clerk of Court www.ned.uscourts.gov Chief Deputy Clerk

TO: The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon 

FROM: Clerk, United States District Court 

 

DATE: February 12, 2024 

SUBJECT: 4:23cv3099 Tyler v. Social Security Administration 

You are receiving this memorandum because a non-prisoner filed a notice of appeal in 

this civil case and the clerk’s office cannot process the appeal to the Eighth Circuit until 

either the appellate filing fee is paid or the question of the non-prisoner’s authorization 

to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is resolved.1 

In order to assist the clerk’s office in its processing of this appeal, please mark the 

appropriate box: 

☒ No separate order will be entered because the appealing party is entitled to proceed 

on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization pursuant to Rule 24(a)(3) of 

the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

☐ A separate order or further proceedings will be required to address the appealing 

party’s authorization to proceed in forma pauperis. The clerk’s office ☐ is ☐ is not 

directed to set a 30-day case management deadline checking on the status of the 

processing of this appeal. 

1 The purpose of this memorandum is to assist in the timely processing of this appeal by notifying 

you that one or more issues may require your attention before the clerk’s office can process the appeal. 

Please feel free to disregard this memorandum if the issue or issues raised will be addressed by a 

separate order. 

4:23-cv-03099-JFB-PRSE Doc # 35 Filed: 02/12/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 85
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

PVP-Salem Associates, L.P.

v. Civil No. 04-cv-386-JD

Parlex Corporation

PROCEDURAL ORDER

The court has been informed by counsel that this case has

settled. 

The court commends the parties and their counsel for their

efforts in reaching a nontrial disposition of this case.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

April 13, 2006

cc: Anthony S. Augeri, Esquire

R. David DePuy, Esquire

Edward A. Haffer, Esquire

Edward D. Kutchin, Esquire

Kerry R. Northrup, Esquire

Case 1:04-cv-00386-JD Document 55 Filed 04/13/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         545,728
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,569,441
<ALLOWANCES>                                 7,079,796
<INVENTORY>                                     46,228
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,129,487
<PP&E>                                         709,324
<DEPRECIATION>                                 399,925
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,468,569
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,928,859
<BONDS>                                        552,950
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  5,294,278
<COMMON>                                           588
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,013,240)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,468,569
<SALES>                                      7,140,814
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,140,814
<CGS>                                        6,111,603
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,111,603
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               991,276
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               761,939
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,325
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (759,329)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (759,329)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (759,329)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    ($0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($0.24)


</TABLE>