alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 472 (Rev. 11/16), modified by NED (9/17) 

Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. Case No. 8:23mj279

GERARDO SOTO-SIGALA, ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL

Defendant

Part I - Eligibility for Detention

Upon the

☒ Motion of the Government attorney pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1),

the Court held a detention hearing and found that detention is warranted. 

This order sets forth the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), in 

addition to any other findings made at the hearing.

Part II - Findings of Fact and Law as to Presumptions under § 3142(e)

☒ B. Rebuttable Presumption Arises Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3) (narcotics, firearm, other offenses): There is a

rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the 

defendant as required and the safety of the community because there is probable cause to believe that the defendant 

committed one or more of the following offenses:

☒ (1) an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more is prescribed in the

Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 801-904), the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 

U.S.C. §§ 951-971), or Chapter 705 of Title 46, U.S.C. (46 U.S.C. §§ 70501-70508);

☒ C. Conclusions Regarding Applicability of Any Presumption Established Above

☒ The defendant has not introduced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption above, and detention is

ordered on that basis. (Part III need not be completed.)

Part III - Analysis and Statement of the Reasons for Detention

Part IV - Directions Regarding Detention

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the Attorney General or to the Attorney General’s designated representative 

for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or 

being held in custody pending appeal. The defendant must be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation 

with defense counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, the person 

in charge of the corrections facility must deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance 

in connection with a court proceeding.

Date: 5/12/2023 s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-mj-00279-MDN Doc # 20 Filed: 05/12/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

DRE'SHAUN E. BURNS,

Defendant.

8:23CR120

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendant's MOTION TO EXTEND PRETRIAL 

MOTION DEADLINE [19]. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. 

Defendant will be given an approximate 90-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by 

September 12, 2023. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant's MOTION TO EXTEND PRETRIAL MOTION DEADLINE [19] is 

granted. Pretrial motions shall be filed on or before September 12, 2023.

2. The ends of justice have been served by granting such motion and outweigh the 

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The additional time arising as a result 

of the granting of the motion, i.e., the time between June 14, 2023, and September 12, 2023, 

shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy 

Trial Act for the reason defendant's counsel required additional time to adequately prepare the 

case, taking into consideration due diligence of counsel, and the novelty and complexity of this 

case. The failure to grant additional time might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 

3161(h)(7)(A) & (B).

Dated this 14th day of June, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00120-RFR-MDN Doc # 20 Filed: 06/14/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 35
[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: E8-21201]


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

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY


Meeting of the TVA Regional Resource Stewardship Council

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The TVA Regional Resource Stewardship Council (RRSC) will hold 
a meeting on October 9 and October 10, 2008, to obtain views and advice 
on the topic of TVA's Commercial and Dispersed Recreation Strategy and 
its Violations & Encroachments Strategy.
    The RRSC was established to advise TVA on its natural resource 
stewardship activities. Notice of this meeting is given under the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, (FACA).
    The meeting agenda includes the following:
    (1) TVA Updates;
    (2) TVA's Environmental Policy and a summary of the RRSC Recom- 
mendations on Stewardship Issues;
    (3) TVA's Commercial Recreation Strategy;
    (4) TVA's Dispersed Recreation Strategy;
    (5) TVA's Violations & Encroachments Strategy;
    (6) Public Comments;
    (7) Council Discussion and Advice.
    The TVA Regional Resource Stewardship Council will hear opinions 
and views of citizens by providing a public comment session. The public 
comment session will be held at 9:30 a.m., EDT, on Friday, October 10. 
Persons wishing to speak are requested to register at the door by 9 
a.m., EDT, on October 10 and will be called on during the public 
comment period. Handout materials should be limited to one printed 
page. Written comments are also invited and may be mailed to the 
Regional Resource Stewardship Council, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 
West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11B, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, October 9, 2008, from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:15 p.m., EDT, and on Friday, October 10, 2008, from 8 a.m. to 
12:30 p.m., EDT.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Auditorium of the TVA 
Headquarters at 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, 
and will be open to the public. Anyone needing special access or 
accommodations should let the contact below know at least a week in 
advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth Keel, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, 
WT 11B, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, (865) 632-6113.

    Dated: September 5, 2008.
Peyton T. Hairston, Jr.,
Senior Vice President, Corporate Responsibility & Diversity, Tennessee 
Valley Authority.
[FR Doc. E8-21201 Filed 9-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-229-01-PB

Lee Lafaso

The defendant has moved to continue the February 7, 2006 trial in the above

case. Defendant cites the need for additional time for the parties to complete their

efforts to negotiate a non-trial disposition or otherwise prepare for the trial or other

disposition of the case. The government does not object to a continuance of the trial

date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time to complete their efforts

to negotiate a non-trial disposition or otherwise prepare for trial or other disposition of

the case, the court will continue the trial from February 7, 2006 to March 7, 2006. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A)

that for the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice served in granting a continuance

outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00229-PB Document 14 Filed 02/02/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The final pretrial conference is continued until February 23, 2006 at 3:30 PM.

SO ORDERED.

February 2, 2006 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Donald Feith, Esq.

Bjorn Lange, Esq.

U. S. Probation

U. S. Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00229-PB Document 14 Filed 02/02/06 Page 2 of 2
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Supreme Court Cause No. DA**  **20 -**  **0 610** 

__________________________________________________________________ IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: LYNDSAY M. LALICKER ,

Petitioner/Appell ee , and CHAD J. HARTKOPF ,

Respondent/Appell ant. **ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME** 

Upon consideration of Appel lant' s Unopposed M otion for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief

, and f or good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant Chad J. Hartkopf is granted an extension of

time to and including May 10, 2021 , within w hich to file his Opening Brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court March 30 2021

03/30/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0610
Case 1:05-cv-00254-PB Document 3 Filed 07/14/2005 Page 1 of 1

Reddick v. Seabury Doc. 3

Dockets.Justia.com
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21003]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Office of the Secretary


Privacy Act of 1974; Abolish Obsolete System of Records

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Agriculture (USDA).

ACTION: Notice of abolishment for USDA/FS-51 Electronic Corpsmember 
Information System (ELCID).

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

SUMMARY: A review of this Privacy Act System of Records has concluded 
that this system is no longer in effect and obsolete. This system is 
being abolished from the Forest Service System of Records in accordance 
with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

DATES: This notice is effective on September 10, 2008.

ADDRESSES: For additional information contact the Director of 
Recreation and Heritage Resources, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Mailstop 1136, Washington, DC 20250-1136.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Gonzales, telephone: (303) 236-
9914.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as 
amended, requires that each agency publish a notice of the existence 
and character of each new or altered ``system of records.'' 5 U.S.C. 
552a(a)(5). This notice identifies and abolishes a Forest Service 
discontinued and obsolete system of records. The Forest Service is 
abolishing the following system of records which, upon review, is no 
longer used and is obsolete: USDA/FS-51 ELCID. The records have been 
transferred to the Federal Records Center and destroyed according to 
the Federal Records Disposal Act of 1943 (44 U.S.C. 366-380) and the 
Federal Records Act of 1950, and as designated in the Forest Service 
Records Management Handbook (FSH) 6209.11.

    Dated: August 27, 2008.
Edward T. Schafer,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21003 Filed 9-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7082 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

2200 North George Mason Drive in Arlington, Virginia, as the ‘‘Jesus 

Antonio Collazos Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 15, 2022 

Mr. BEYER (for himself, Ms. WEXTON, Mr. CONNOLLY, and Mr. SCOTT of 

Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2200 North George Mason Drive in Arlington, 

Virginia, as the ‘‘Jesus Antonio Collazos Post Office 

Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. JESUS ANTONIO COLLAZOS POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 2200 North George Mason Drive 

7 in Arlington, Virginia, shall be known and designated as 

8 the ‘‘Jesus Antonio Collazos Post Office Building’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7082 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Jesus Antonio 

5 Collazos Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) United Support Solutions ) ) Under Contract No. W911N2-13-D-0004 ) APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 59553

Lawrence J. Sklute, Esq.

Sklute & Associates Potomac, MD Raymond M. Saunders, Esq.

Army ChiefTrial Attorney CPT Lyn P. Juarez, JA

Trial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL For reasons indicated by one or both parties, the Board is unable to proceed with disposition ofthe above appeal for an inordinate length oftime due to factors not within the control ofthe Board. Accordingly, the above appeal is hereby dismissed without prejudice pursuantto Board Rule l 8(b). Unless either party or the Board acts to reinstate the appeal within three years from the date ofthis Order, the dismissal shall be deemed with prejudice. Dated: 18 December 2014

# ~$ Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Opinion and Decision ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59553, Appeal ofUnited Support Solutions, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated: JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
* 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. 97-30472

Summary Calendar

 

LARRY J. THIBODEAUX,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF EUNICE; VARDEN GUILLORY, SR.; 

TRACY CHADDICK; ANDREA DARBY,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-1206

- - - - - - - - - -

February 4, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Larry J. Thibodeaux appeals from the district court’s order

granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his civil

rights complaint. Thibodeaux argues that he was wrongfully

arrested, that he was subjected to unlawful fingerprinting and

incarceration, that he was not advised of his Sixth Amendment

rights, and that his bond was excessive. Thibodeaux also asserts

that two Eunice city court clerks’ refusal to file certain
No. 97-30472

-2-

pretrial motions in the resulting proceeding amounted to a

denial-of-access-to-the-courts claim. We have reviewed the

record and the parties’ briefs, and we conclude that Thibodeaux’s

argument is frivolous for essentially the same reasons set forth

by the district court. See Thibodeaux v. City of Eunice et al.,

No. 96-1206 (W.D. La. Apr. 29, 1997).

Additionally, Thibodeaux has failed to show that the

district court’s decision denying his request to amend his

complaint was an abuse of discretion. See Rolf v. City of San

Antonio, 77 F.3d 823, 828 (5th Cir. 1996). Thibodeaux’s

assertion that the district court erred by denying his request

that the defendants be informed of a purported conflict of

interest with their attorney is without merit. Nor has

Thibodeaux shown that the district court abused its discretion by

granting the defendants’ motion to compel discovery and by

assessing attorneys’ fees of $250 against Thibodeaux for his

initial refusal to respond to the discovery requests. See

Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 417 (5th Cir. 1990).

Thibodeaux’s appeal is without arguable merit, and it is

therefore frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20

(5th Cir. 1983). It is therefore DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

His request for permission to file an amended notice of appeal is

DENIED.

The appellees’ motion for the imposition of damages is

GRANTED and we remand to the district court for an assessment of
No. 97-30472

-3-

double costs and attorney’s fees for this frivolous appeal. Fed.

R. App. P. 38. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION TO FILE AN AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL

DENIED; MOTION FOR DAMAGES PURSUANT TO FED. R. APP. P. 38

GRANTED; REMAND TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR ASSESSMENT OF DOUBLE

COSTS AND DAMAGES.
#### ERNEST v. GODCHAUX SUGARS, Inc., et al.*

No. 16813.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Nov. 28, 1938.

Jno. E. Fleury, of Gretna, and Robert A. Ainsworth, Jr., and Porteous, Johnson & Humphrey, all of New Orleans, for appellant Louis W. Ernest.

Edward Rightor and W. H. Sellers, both of New Orleans, for appellees Godchaux Sugars, Inc., and General Accident, Fire & Life Assur. Corporation, Limited.

Leo W. McCune, of Gretna, and W. T. Holloway, of Jonesboro, for appellee Succession of Wm. J. Hammon.

*

Rehearing denied Jan. *10,*1939.

*724JANVIER, Judge.

Louis W. Ernest seeks recovery for injuries sustained by him in the accident out of which resulted the suit of Mrs. Julia Dupuy, Widow of Damas Dupuy,- against the same defendants, in which suit we have this day rendered an opinion and decree. Ernest was a passenger in the truck driven by Henry Dupuy and, for the reasons given in the suit of Mrs. Julia Dupuy, he is entitled to recovery for such amount as will compensate him for the injuries sustained.

He was awarded $1,500 in the court below. He has practically lost the sight of one of his eyes and he states that he is also losing the sight of the other, though we do not find corroboration of this in the record. His nose was fractured and he says that his sense of smell is affected unless he holds a finger on one of his nostrils. Three of his ribs and one of his legs were bruised and he states that his doctor said that the ribs were “dislocated from the breast-bone”. He testified further that it always hurts him to breathe and that he cannot walk for any distance. He further stated that he has constant headaches and that he at first thought he had a fracture of the base of the skull. He was taken to the hospital, where it was necessary to give him two blood transfusions.

Under the circumstances we believe that the amount awarded was inadequate.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from be and it is amended by the increase thereof to $2,500 and that, as thus amended, it be and it is affirmed at the cost of Mrs. Jennie Hammon, administratrix of the Succession of William J. Hammon.

Amended and affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ROBERT JOHNSON, 

Defendant.

8:23CR108

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the motion of retained counsel, Stuart J. Dornan, to withdraw 

as counsel for the defendant, Robert Johnson. (Filing No. 28). Stuart J. Dornan represents that he has 

a conflict of interest in this matter. Stuart J. Dornan’s motion to withdraw (Filing No. 28) was granted

(Filing No. 29).

Michael J. Hansen, Federal Public Defender’s Office, 222 South 15th Street, Suite 300N, One 

Central Park Plaza, Omaha, Nebraska 68102, (402) 221-7896, is appointed to represent Robert 

Johnson for the balance of these proceedings pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. 

§3006A, and Amended Criminal Justice Act Plan for the District of Nebraska. 

Stuart J. Dornan shall forthwith provide Michael J. Hansen any discovery materials provided 

to the defendant by the government and any such other materials obtained by Stuart J. Dornan which 

are material to Robert Johnson’s defense.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated this 17th day of July, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00108-BCB-MDN Doc # 31 Filed: 07/17/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 55
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18**

**of the United States Code**

 

I, E. James Ferland, Chief Executive Officer of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated.

 

 

|   |   |   | /s/ E. James Ferland                         |
|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   | **E. James Ferland**                         |
|   |   |   | Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated |
|   |   |   | Chief Executive Officer                      |
|   |   |   | November 1, 2006                             |

 

 

 

----
#### CITY OF NEW ORLEANS v. WATTIGNY.

No. 17787.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Oct. 8, 1946.

Henry G. McCall, City Atty., and Cicero C. Sessions, Asst. City Atty., both of New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

John F. Stafford and Sidney J. Par-longue, both of New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an expropriation proceeding brought by the City of New Orleans to obtain certain lands containing 1.780 acres owned by Antoine Edward Wattigny. By judgment of the trial court the property was adjudicated to the plaintiff upon payment by it to the defendant of the sum of Eight Hundred and Ninety Dollars ($890), or $500 per acre. In related and similar cases, with which this cause was consolidated for trial in the District Court, City of New Orleans v. Larroux et al., 203 La. 990, 14 So.2d 812; City of New Orleans v. Heffle et al., 203 La. 996, 14 So.2d 814; City of New Orleans v. Cass et al., 203 La. 997, 14 So.2d 814; and City of New Orleans v. Cerevallo et al., 203 La. 998, 14 So.2d 814; the Supreme Court of Louisiana reduced the award of the jury and the judgment of the trial court from $500 per acre to $400 per acre.

By joint motion and stipulation of the parties herein, each consents and agrees that upon the authority of these Supreme Court decisions, the valuation of the expropriated land in this cause should also be reduced to $400 per acre.

Considering the joint motion and stipulation, it is ordered that the judgment of the lower court adjudicating to the plaintiff, the City of New Orleans, the following described property, to-wit:

> *“A*certain portion of ground in the Parish of Jefferson, Town of Kenner, being in particular the rear portion of property owned by A. É. Wattigny, being bounded on the East by the Pailet Tract and on the West by property owned by Miss Gertrude O. Brooks. The Parcel A to be acquired by the City of New Orleans *453commences on the West line of the said Wattigny property at a distance of 2458' O" O" ' from the Illinois Central Railroad right-of-way; thence along the said division line 406' 7" 5'" to the rear line of the said A. E. Wattigny property “which is also the front property line of the Pailet Tract; thence along the rear division line 192' O" O'" to the East property line of the Wattigny property; thence along the said East line and in a direction towards the Illinois Central Railroad Right-of-way 401' 3" *O'"*to a point 2555 feet from the said railroad right-of-way; thence in a westerly direction 192' 1" 3'" to the point of beginning.

> “The above described parcel contains 1.780 acres,”

be and it is amended so as to award the defendant, Antoine Edward Wattigny, the sum of Seven Hundred and Twelve Dollars ($712) for the lands taken. As thus amended, the judgment is affirmed. The cost of this appeal is to be paid by ap-pellee.

Amended and affirmed.