alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0668 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. NICHOLAS WELLS,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 5, 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 27 2023

04/27/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0668
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,553,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,480,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,250,000
<PP&E>                                      99,028,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,468,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             103,843,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,277,000
<BONDS>                                     36,602,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   108,518,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (47,554,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               103,843,000
<SALES>                                     22,559,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,715,000
<CGS>                                        2,313,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,854,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             739,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             19,099,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                19,099,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.00
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America,

Government

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-253-01-SM

Keith S. MacLeod,

Defendant

ORDER FOR PSYCHIATRIC OR PSYCHOLOGICAL

EXAMINATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 4241

The motion for competency evaluation under 18 U.S.C. § 4241

(document no. 36) was previously granted on November 15, 2006. 

The court hereby orders that a psychiatric or psychological

examination of Defendant Keith S. MacLeod be conducted, and that

a psychiatric or psychological report be filed with the court,

pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b), (c).

Defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney

General for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days for placement

in a suitable facility where an examination of the defendant’s

mental condition can be conducted, or if appropriate, counsel for

the parties may seek to agree on an outpatient examination and an

appropriate examiner, and advise the court of such agreement.

Case 1:05-cr-00253-SM Document 38 Filed 11/20/06 Page 1 of 2
2

A hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(c) and scheduling of

defendant’s trial will be deferred until completion of that

examination, and submission of a report to the court.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

November 20, 2006

cc: Arnold H. Huftalen, Esq.

Stanley W. Norkunas, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:05-cr-00253-SM Document 38 Filed 11/20/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-246-01-PB

Steven Cherry

O R D E R

Defendant appeared for a bail revocation hearing pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3148. Defendant did not contest the violations

including: (1) use of cocaine; (2) failure to report; (3) failure

to seek employment; (4) commission of a crime; and (5) violation

of travel restrictions. Given the number of failed opportunities

to comply with conditions I find that the defendant is unlikely

to abide by any condition or combination of conditions. The

conditions of release are revoked.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained

pending trial. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney

General or his 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 shall be afforded a reasonable

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On

Case 1:05-cr-00246-PB Document 21 Filed 02/06/06 Page 1 of 2
2

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 shall deliver the defendant to the United

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

___________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: February 6, 2006 

cc: John E. Durkin, Esq.

 Clyde R.W. Garrigan, Esq.

 Donald A. Kennedy, Esq.

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:05-cr-00246-PB Document 21 Filed 02/06/06 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2142

DERRICK ALLEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JENNIFER ELWELL, SBI LABORATORY TECHNICIAN; MARK NELSON, 

SBI LAB TECHNICIAN; CERLYN DAVIS, POLICE CHIEF; GRANT GILLIAM, 

EX-INVESTIGATOR FOR DURHAM PD; CITY OF DURHAM; FREDA 

BLACK; TRACEY CLINE; THE DURHAM POLICE DEPARTMENT; DURHAM 

COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE; NORTH CAROLINA STATE 

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-00766-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: February 17, 2022 Decided: February 22, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Michael Allen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Allen seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate 

judge’s report and dismissing Allen’s claims against seven of the eight defendants named 

in Allen’s amended complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The 

order Allen seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or 

collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [License No. 06/76-0330]

      ( print page 54197)    
Notice is hereby given that SunTx Fulcrum Fund II—SBIC, L.P., Two Lincoln Centre, 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1000, Dallas, TX 75240, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under section 312 of the Act and section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) rules and regulations (13 CFR 107.730 (2002)). SunTx Fulcrum Fund II—SBIC, L.P. proposes to provide preferred equity security financing to Interface Security Holdings, Inc., 3773 Corporate Center Drive, Earth City, MO 63045. The financing is contemplated to provide the company with the necessary capital to purchase the interest of GAC's founders.

The financing is brought within the purview of Sec. 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because SunTx Fulcrum Fund, L.P. and SunTx Fulcrum Dutch Investors, L.P., an Associate of SunTx Fulcrum Fund II—SBIC, L.P., own in the aggregate 47% of the outstanding ownership of Interface. Therefore, this transaction is considered a financing of an Associate requiring prior SBA approval.

Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within 15 days of the date of this publication, to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416.

Dated: September 5, 2008.

A. Joseph Shepard,

Associate Administrator for Investment.

[FR Doc. E8-21898 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
exv10w1



 






Exhibit 10.1




[EntreMed Letterhead]




March [__], 2005




James S. Burns

President and Chief Executive Officer

EntreMed, Inc.

9640 Medical Center Drive

Rockville, MD 20850



     Re: Restricted Stock



Dear Jim:




     As you know, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of EntreMed, Inc. (the
“Corporation”) has agreed to award to you restricted stock under the EntreMed, Inc. 2001 Long-Term
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) in the event that certain goals relating to the performance of the
Corporation’s common stock are satisfied. This letter agreement (this “Agreement”) describes the
circumstances under which such awards will be made.



     In the event that the closing price of the Corporation’s common stock reported on the NASDAQ
National Market equals or exceeds the prices set forth in the table below for five consecutive
trading days during the term of your employment with the Corporation, you will be awarded a
corresponding number of shares of restricted stock under the Plan as follows:



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Price 	 	 	Shares of Restricted Stock	 	 	Vesting after Date of Award	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	$3.15	 	 	30,000	 	 	Shares vest on the third anniversary of the date of award.	 
	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	$4.50	 	 	35,000	 	 	Shares vest on the third anniversary of the date of award.	 
	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	$6.00	 	 	40,000	 	 	Shares vest on the second anniversary of the date of award.	 
	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	$7.50	 	 	45,000	 	 	Shares vest on the first anniversary of the date of award.	 
	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Total Potential
Shares:
	 	 	150,000 	 	 	 	 
	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 





     The Compensation Committee reserves the right to equitably adjust the prices set forth
above in the event of an extraordinary transaction involving the Corporation, such as a merger.



1









 





     As an additional condition to the award of any restricted stock under the Plan pursuant to
this Agreement, you will be required to enter into a Restricted Stock Agreement that will be
substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A.



     Please sign and date this letter on the spaces provided below to acknowledge your acceptance
of the terms of this Agreement.



Sincerely,



Mark C.M Randall

Chairman, Compensation Committee



I have agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.




	 	 	 
	Date:                                          , 2005

	 	

	

	 	James S. Burns






2
Case 1:06-cr-00079-PB Document 112 Filed 02/27/08 Page 1 of 2Case 1:06-cr-00079-PB Document 112 Filed 02/27/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-85-01-PB

Richard Villar, et. al.

O R D E R

Defendant, Joshua Gagnon, through counsel, has moved to

continue the July 6, 2006 trial in the above case, citing the

need for additional time to engage in plea negotiations or 

prepare a defense. The government and co-defendant does not

object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to negotiate a plea agreement or properly prepare for trial, the

court will continue the trial from July 6, 2006 to October 3,

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 defendants in a

speedy trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00085-PB Document 23 Filed 06/30/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial on September 25, 2006

at 4:15 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

June 30, 2006

cc: Sven Wiberg, Esq.

Douglas Miller, Esq.

Terry Ollila, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00085-PB Document 23 Filed 06/30/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-237-01-SM

Christopher D. Mann

O R D E R

Defendant Mann’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial

is granted (document 7). Trial has been rescheduled for the April 2006 trial

period. Defendant Mann shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than

December 21, 2005. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be

effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: March 23, 2006 at 2:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: April 4, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:05-cr-00237-SM Document 8 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

December 13, 2005

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Clyde R.W. Garrigan, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00237-SM Document 8 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No. DA 20-0610

__________________________________________________________________

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: 

LYNDSAY M. LALICKER ,

Petitioner/Appellee,

and

CHAD J. HARTKOPF, 

Respondent/Appellant.

ORDER GRANTING

EXTENSION OF TIME 

Upon consideration of Appellant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time

to File Opening Brief, and for 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 which 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
**Exhibit
      3(i).1**









**ARTICLES
      OF AMENDMENT**




**OF**




**PUGET
      ENERGY, INC.**




The
      following Articles of Amendment are executed by the undersigned, a Washington
      corporation:




1.           The
      name of the corporation is Puget Energy, Inc.




2.           Article 7
      of the Restated Articles of Incorporation of the corporation is amended in
      its
      entirety to read as follows:




**ARTICLE
      7. DIRECTORS**




(a)           The
      number of Directors of this corporation shall not be less than nine nor more
      than fifteen, the exact number to be determined in the manner provided by the
      Bylaws and may be increased or decreased from time to time in the manner
      provided therein. The Directors shall be divided into three classes, each class
      to be as nearly equal in number as possible. The terms of the Directors in
      the
      first class shall expire at the first annual shareholders’ meeting after their
      election, the terms of the Directors in the second class shall expire at the
      second annual shareholders’ meeting after their election, and the terms of the
      Directors in the third class shall expire at the third annual shareholders’
meeting after their election. At each annual shareholders’ meeting held
      thereafter, the Directors shall be chosen for a term of three years to succeed
      those whose terms expire. The Directors of this corporation may be removed
      only
      for cause in the manner provided by the Bylaws. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
      in an election to which plurality voting does not apply, the term of a Director
      who does not receive a majority of the votes cast in accordance with
      Section (b) of this Article 7 shall continue only until the next
      annual shareholder’s meeting and until his or her successor is duly elected, or
      his or her earlier resignation or removal.





(b)           A
        nominee for director shall be elected to the Board of Directors if the votes
        cast for such nominee’s election exceed the votes cast against such nominee’s
        election; provided, however, that if the number of nominees for any election
        of
        Directors exceeds the number of Directors to be elected, the Directors shall
        be
        elected by a plurality of the votes cast. If Directors are to be elected
        by a
        plurality of the votes cast, shareholders shall not be permitted to vote
        against
        a nominee.




3.           The
      date of the adoption of the amendment by the shareholders of the corporation
      is
      May 4, 2007.  The amendment was duly approved by the
      shareholders****of the corporation in accordance with the
      provisions of RCW 23B.10.030 and RCW 23B.10.040.




Dated:  May
      4, 2007




PUGET
                  ENERGY, INC./s/James W. EldredgeJames
                  W. EldredgeVice
                  President, Corporate Secretary and Chief Accounting
                  Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Charles E . Glenn

V .

Hillsborough County Department

of Corrections, et al .

No . 06-fp-09 9

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERI S

Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee .

This case has been assigned civil number 06-cv-099-PB .

SO ORDERED .

s R . Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judg e

Date : March 23, 200 6

cc : Charles E . Glenn, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00099-JD Document 4 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

DANIEL POLYANSKY,

Defendant.

CASE NO: 4:23CR3065

DETENTION ORDER

The defendant is charged with a felony involving a minor victim. On the 

government's motion, the court afforded the defendant an opportunity for a 

detention hearing under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). The court 

concludes the defendant must be detained pending trial.

There is a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of 

conditions of release will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at court 

proceedings and the safety of the community because there is probable cause to 

believe the defendant committed a child pornography crime. The defendant has 

not rebutted this presumption.

Based on the information of record, the court finds by a preponderance of 

the evidence that the defendant's release would pose a risk of nonappearance at 

court proceedings, and by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's 

release would pose a risk of harm to the public.

Specifically, the court finds that the defendant has a criminal history of 

violating the law and court orders; violated conditions of release previously 

imposed by a court; has a history of harming or threatening harm to others; lacks 

a stable residence; has limited employment contacts; has failed to appear for 

4:23-cr-03065-JMG-CRZ Doc # 17 Filed: 05/24/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 30
court proceedings in the past; and presented no evidence opposing the 

presumption of detention.

Conditions which restrict Defendant’s travel, personal contacts, and 

possession of drugs, alcohol, and/or firearms; require reporting, education, 

employment, or treatment; or monitor Defendant’s movements or conduct; or any 

combination of these conditions or others currently proposed or available (see 18 

U.S.C. § 3142(c)), will not sufficiently ameliorate the risks posed if the defendant 

is released.

Directions Regarding Detention

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or a 

designated representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to 

the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or held in 

custody pending appeal. The defendant must be afforded a reasonable 

opportunity to consult privately with defense counsel. On order of the United 

States Court or on request of an attorney for the Government, the person in 

charge of the corrections facility must deliver the defendant to the United States 

marshal for a court appearance.

Dated May 24, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cr-03065-JMG-CRZ Doc # 17 Filed: 05/24/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 31
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: Eufemio Morales v. State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 7

- 00 532

- CV

Trial court case number: 74453

Trial court: 27th District Court of Bell County

Date motion filed : September 4 , 201 8

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied

. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 49.3.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Lloyd

.

Date: September 20 , 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Centex Home Equity Company, LLC

v. 06-cv-83-SM

George Berube, et al. 

O R D E R

This case was removed from Hillsborough County Superior Court, Northern District,

by the United States on February 27, 2006. On March 28, 2006, the United States filed a

Disclaimer of Interest in Interpleaded Funds, and is no longer a party to the action.

Therefore, the case is hereby remanded back to state court, there being no federal question

or other basis upon which to exercise jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

March 29, 2006 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Veronica Caballero Viveiros, Esq.

Frank P. Spinella, Jr., Esq.

Thomas P. Cole, Esq.

Lynne A. Saben, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00083-SM Document 19 Filed 03/29/06 Page 1 of 1