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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Green Machine Management Corp.

v. Civil No. 05-cv-439-SM

Eileen A. Nevins

O R D E R

 Defendant moves for entry of default judgment for

plaintiff’s failure to provide documents in response to her 

Rule 34 request. 

The document request was made on June 15, 2006. Follow-up

requests by mail were made on July 26 and August 21, 2006. 

Plaintiff’s counsel has indicated that he has inquired of

plaintiff’s sole shareholder as to why no documents have been

produced and has received no response. Plaintiff is ordered to

show cause within ten (10) days why the case should not be

dismissed with prejudice for failure to provide discovery. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 18, 2006

cc: Steven M. Latici, Esq.

 Ralph Suozzo, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00439-SM Document 12 Filed 10/18/06 Page 1 of 1
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 20, 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”), PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. 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, EADS North America Test & Services, Irvine, CA; DAQTron, Inc., Roswell, GA; and Integrated Device Technology, Inc. San Jose, CA have been added as parties to this venture. Also, Nextronic Engineering Corp., Taipei TAIWAN; and OpenSystems Publishing LLC, St. Clair Shores, MI have withdrawn 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 PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. 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 March 8, 2001 (66 FR 13971).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 4, 2008. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 11, 2008 (73 FR 39987).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. E8-21743 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 7, 2016

No. 04-16-00038-CV

CITY OF FLORESVILLE, TEXAS, City of Floresville City Council, City of Floresville City 

Planning and Zoning Committee, and the Wilson County Appraisal District,

Appellants

v.

STARNES INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-06-0367-CVW

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal. Appellee has filed a motion for extension of time to file its

brief, requesting an extension to April 26, 2016. Appellee’s motion is granted. Appellee’s brief is 

due April 26, 2016. If appellee’s brief is not filed by April 26, 2016, this appeal will be set “at 

issue” and will be set for submission without an appellee’s brief. 

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 7th day of April, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Larry Stanley and Terri Stanley v. John McClanahan

Appellate case number: 01-13-00982-CV

Trial court case number: D-13-5,197

Trial court: County Court of Colorado County

In this forcible-detainer action, appellants, Larry Stanley and Terry Stanley, have filed an 

“Emergency Motion to Stay Writ of Possession.” Appellants are not entitled to a stay in this 

case because they did not file a supersedeas bond within 10 days of the county court’s judgment. 

See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007 (West Supp. 2013) (“A judgment of a county court in an 

eviction suit may not under any circumstances be stayed pending appeal unless, within 10 days 

of the signing of the judgment, the appellant files a supersedeas bond in an amount set by the 

county court.”); In re Campbell, No. 03-13-00712-CV, 2013 WL 5878895, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Austin Oct. 30, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“An appellate court may not stay the 

judgment unless a supersedeas bond in accordance with section 24.007 has been filed.”); Holmes 

v. Al Jaafreh, No. 10-11-00320-CV, 2013 WL 2399059, at *1 n. 1 (Tex. App.—Waco May 30, 

2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting denial of emergency request to stay execution of writ of 

possession because appellant failed to file supersedeas bond); Phillips v. Branch Banking & 

Trust Co., No. 03-11-00461-CV, 2012 WL 424875, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 1, 2012, 

order) (denying emergency motion to stay execution of writ of possession because appellant did 

not post supersedeas bond in accordance with section 24.007); see also Wilhelm v. Fed. Nat’l 

Mortg. Ass’n, 349 S.W.3d 766, 768 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (“If a 

supersedeas bond in the amount set by the trial court is not filed, the judgment in a forcibledetainer action may be enforced and a writ of possession may be executed evicting the defendant 

from the premises in question.”). Appellants’ motion is DENIED.

1

It is so ORDERED.

 

1 We note that appellants vacated the property on November 7, 2013, 12 days before they 

filed their emergency motion.
Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 4, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Carmen Marquez-Marin,

Plaintiff

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

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

Alberto Gonzales,

United States Attorney General;

and Humberto “Bert” Garcia,

U.S. Attorney for the

District of Puerto Rico,

Defendants

O R D E R

A telephonic status conference was held on December 20,

2006. The parties agreed to mediate this dispute and the court

undertook to solicit Chief Magistrate Judge Justo Arenas to serve

as mediator. Judge Arenas is unable to do so as he will be

unavailable in January. The parties shall agree upon a mediator

selected from the list on the court annexed mediation page of the

district court’s website and complete mediation before January

26, 2007.

The jury will be selected during the week of March 5-11,

2007, and trial will begin on Tuesday, March 13, 2007. Counsel

will be advised of the trial location by the deputy clerk.

Case 1:05-ds-00247-SM Document 28 Filed 12/21/06 Page 1 of 2
2

A further telephonic pretrial conference will be held prior

to trial.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

December 21, 2006

cc: Judith Berkan, Esq.

Mary Jo Mendez-Vilella, Esq.

Carole M. Fernandez, Esq.

Clerk of the U.S. District Court

District of Puerto Rico

Case 1:05-ds-00247-SM Document 28 Filed 12/21/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.b



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 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), the undersigned officer of DataJungle Software Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the three months ended September 30, 2004 (the Form 10-QSB/A) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-QSB/A.



|Dated: November 24, 2004 |  | /s/Larry Bruce
Larry Bruce
Vice President Finance, Secretary and Treasurer
|------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-QSB/A pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB/A for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 177 (Thursday, September 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21324]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration


Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of 
Directors

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

Time and Date:  October 9, 2008, 12 noon to 3 p.m., Eastern Daylight 
Time.

Place:  This meeting will take place telephonically. Any interested 
person may call Mr. Avelino Gutierrez at (505) 827-4565 to receive the 
toll free number and pass code needed to participate in these meetings 
by telephone.

Status:  Open to the public.

Matters to be Considered:  The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board 
of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and 
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to 
that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified 
Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.

    Dated: September 9, 2008.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E8-21324 Filed 9-9-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            56,707
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                           36,206
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                             35,919
<EQUITIES>                                      21,064
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 119,905
<CASH>                                          13,907
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               3,965
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          10,354
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 199,541
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 56,664
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             43,629
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 12,892
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,866
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,787
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   199,541
<PREMIUMS>                                      52,123
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              2,935
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               1,714
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   2,286
<BENEFITS>                                      31,266
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            25,524
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,071
<INCOME-TAX>                                       680
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,391
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,391
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                  52,708
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                 56,664
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
ANDRE BAZIL,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5419

Opinion filed February 9, 2016.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel -- Original 

Jurisdiction.

Andre Bazil, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(d)(5).

WOLF, ROWE, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

REYNALDO LAMPLEY,

Defendant.

8:23CR121

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Extend Time to File Pretrial 

Motions (Filing No. 22). The motion is unopposed by the government. For good cause shown, 

the Court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1) The Defendant's Motion to Extend Time to File Pretrial Motions (Filing No. 22) 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 August 7, 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 8th day of August, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00121-RFR-MDN Doc # 23 Filed: 08/08/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 38
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 74 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 74

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 107-44 is 
further amended by striking the date specified in section 107(c) and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``December 7, 2001''; and by striking the 
date specified in section 123 and inserting in lieu thereof ``December 
1, 2001''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 15, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 74

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and 
                          for other purposes.
```
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A0330. QUINTAVEUS WILLIAMS v. THE STATE.

In 2013,Quintaveus Williams entered a guilty plea to armed robbery, hijacking

a motor vehicle, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. In

May 2017, he filed a motion to set aside the judgment of conviction pursuant to

OCGA § 9-11-60, asserting that the indictment was void. The trial court denied the

motion, and Williams filed this direct appeal. The State has filed a motion to dismiss

the appeal on the ground that Williams is not authorized to seek relief from his

convictions by filing a motion to set aside. We agree.

“It has been held many times that a motion to set aside a judgment is

inappropriate in a criminal case.” Lacey v. State, 253 Ga. 711, 711 (324 SE2d 471)

(1985). Regardless of how it is styled, a motion seeking to challenge an allegedly

invalid or void judgment of conviction “is not one of the established procedures for

challenging the validity of a judgment in a criminal case.” Roberts v. State, 286 Ga.

532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010). Because Williams is not authorized to collaterally

attack his conviction in this manner, the State’s motion to dismiss is hereby

GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED. See id.;see also Harper v. State, 286 Ga.

216, 218 (1) & (2) (686 SE2d 786) (2009).

October 09, 2019
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

10/09/2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Patrick E. Dullen

v. 05-cv-139-PB

Cheshire County, et al.

O R D E R

Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, plaintiff Patrick

E. Dullen brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

alleging that defendants have abridged his rights under the

First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution (document no. 1). Named as defendants are Cheshire

County, Cheshire County Department of Corrections (“CCDOC”) and

four CCDOC employees and/or contractors: Superintendent Richard

N. Van Wickler; Captain Robert Cook; Dr. Stern; and Nurse Carol

Anne Rochelau. 

The complaint is before me for preliminary review to

determine whether, among other things, it states a claim upon

which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; U.S.

District Court for the District of New Hampshire Local Rule

(“LR”) 4.3(d)(2). 

Case 1:05-cv-00139-PB Document 7 Filed 06/23/05 Page 1 of 3
2

Without commenting on the merits of the claims, and for the

reasons stated in the report and recommendation issued

simultaneously herewith, I find that Dullen has alleged Eighth

Amendment claims premised upon denial of adequate medical care

against Stern and Rochelau and Eighth Amendment claims premised

upon denial of adequate dental care against Rochelau and Cook. I

recommend dismissal of all remaining claims.

Accordingly, I order that the complaint be served on the

defendants. The Clerk’s Office is instructed to prepare the

summonses for each defendant and deliver to the United States

Marshal for the District of New Hampshire (“U.S. Marshal’s

Office”) the summonses and copies of the complaint (document no.

1), the report and recommendation and this order. Upon receipt

of the necessary documentation, the U.S. Marshal’s Office shall

effect service upon the defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2).

Defendants shall answer or otherwise plead within twenty

days of acceptance of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). 

Plaintiff is instructed that all future pleadings, written

motions, notices, or similar papers shall be served directly on

the defendants by delivering or mailing the materials to them or

Case 1:05-cv-00139-PB Document 7 Filed 06/23/05 Page 2 of 3
3

their attorneys, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b). 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: June 23, 2005

 cc: Patrick E. Dullen, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00139-PB Document 7 Filed 06/23/05 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Gregory Alan Gaylor

v. Case No. 04-cv-372-PB

01-cv-13-PB

Warden, NHSP

NOTICE OF RULING

Re: Document No. 15, Motion to Dismiss (CV-04-372-PB)

Ruling: This case shall be consolidated with case no. 01-cv13-PB. All pending motions in both cases are denied without

prejudice. No further pleadings shall be filed in either case

without prior court approval. On or before July 15, 2005, the

defendant shall file a motion for summary judgment and a supporting

memorandum addressing both cases. On or before August 15, 2005,

petitioner shall file an objection and supporting memorandum. 

Entered by: Paul Barbadoro, District Judge

Date: July 1, 2005

cc: Gregory Alan Gaylor, pro se

Karen E. Huntress, Esq.

Harry N. Starbranch, Jr., Esq.

Case 1:04-cv-00372-PB Document 28 Filed 07/01/05 Page 1 of 1