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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America,

Government

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-71-1,2-SM

Elaine A. Brown and

Edward L. Brown,

Defendants

O R D E R

Documents mailed to the court by David E. Robinson, taken

together, appear to constitute a pro se motion to intervene, in

some capacity, in this federal tax crimes prosecution of Edward

and Elaine Brown.

Robinson, a self-styled “advocate,” wishes to specially

appear “on his own behalf.” The defendants plainly have not

authorized Robinson to act as their legal counsel, or to

otherwise act on their behalf with respect to this case (nor

could they likely do so, given Robinson’s apparent lack of

qualifications).

The motion (styled as a petition for writ of error coram

nobis) is denied as Robinson is unqualified to act as legal

Case 1:06-cr-00071-SM Document 145 Filed 02/15/07 Page 1 of 2
2

counsel, is without authority, has no standing to intervene, and

the motion is otherwise frivolous.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

February 15, 2007

cc: David E. Robinson, pro se

William E. Morse, Esq.

Bjorn R. Lange, Esq.

Elaine A. Brown, pro se

Edward L. Brown, pro se

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00071-SM Document 145 Filed 02/15/07 Page 2 of 2
February 27 , 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CHARLES FREEMAN JR , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00939

- CV V.

KENT DICKERSON, ROBE RT H. KANE, JR., RONALD H. SHAMB LIN,

D. D.S., AND JOHNNY MAS ON, D.D.S. , Appellee s

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on September 9, 2013. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Charles Freeman Jr.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

Kristyn Graham

CR. NO.

INDICTMENT

The Grand Jury charges:

COUNT ONE

FALSE REPRESENTATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER

[42 U.S.C. §408(a)(7)(B)]

From in and about May of 1997 to in and about November of 2003,

in the District of New Hampshire and elsewhere, the defendant,

Kristyn Graham,

for the purpose of deceiving law enforcement officers about her true

identity, and with intent to deceive, falsely represented to the Dover

Police Department that the social security account number assigned to

the defendant by the Commissioner of Social Security was xxx-xx-xxxx,

when in fact, as the defendant well knew, that was not the social

security account number that had been assigned to the defendant by the

Commissioner of Social Security.

All in violation of Title 42, United States Code, Section

408(a)(7)(B).

Case 1:06-cr-00045-PB Document 1 Filed 03/08/06 Page 1 of 3
COUNT TWO

FALSE REPRESENTATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER

[42 U.S.C. §408(a)(7)(B)]

From on or about May 4, 2005 to in and about October of 2005, in

the District of New Hampshire and elsewhere, the defendant,

Kristyn Graham,

for the purpose of obtaining a thing of value from another person,

that is rental property, and with intent to deceive, falsely

represented to the owners of the rental property that the social

security account number assigned to the defendant by the Commissioner

of Social Security was xxx-xx-xxxx, when in fact, as the defendant

well knew, that was not the social security account number that had

been assigned to the defendant by the Commissioner of Social Security.

All in violation of Title 42, United States Code, Section

408(a)(7)(B).

Case 1:06-cr-00045-PB Document 1 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 3
COUNT THREE

FALSE REPRESENTATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER

[42 U.S.C. §408(a)(7)(B)]

From on or about August 23, 2005 to in and about October of 

2005, in the District of New Hampshire and elsewhere, the defendant,

Kristyn Graham,

for the purpose of obtaining a thing of value from another person,

that is general welfare assistance from the City of Dover, New

Hampshire, and with intent to deceive, falsely represented to the City

of Dover Welfare Department that the social security account number

assigned to the defendant by the Commissioner of Social Security was

xxx-xx-xxxx, when in fact, as the defendant well knew, that was not

the social security account number that had been assigned to the

defendant by the Commissioner of Social Security.

All in violation of Title 42, United States Code, Section

408(a)(7)(B).

A TRUE BILL

 /s/ Grand Jury Foreperson

Dated: March 8, 2006 Foreperson

THOMAS P. COLANTUONO

United States Attorney

District of New Hampshire

By: /s/ Alfred Rubega 

Alfred Rubega

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Case 1:06-cr-00045-PB Document 1 Filed 03/08/06 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 12

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                       BROOKDALE LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC.

                   STATEMENTS REGARDING COMPUTATION OF RATIOS
                      OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
                         AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
                            (In 000's, Except Ratios)


                                                                     Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                                         1999             1998   
                                                                         ----             ----
EARNINGS
--------
<S>                                                                   <C>             <C>        
Income before income tax, expense per consolidated financial
    statements .................................................      $      4,336    $     1,725

Interest cost...................................................             7,486          4,914
Interest cost (capitalized).....................................              (400)          (203)
Amortization of debt expense....................................               383            303

Preferred stock dividends.......................................                --             --
                                                                      ------------    -----------

Earnings .......................................................      $     11,805    $     6,739
                                                                      ============    ===========

FIXED CHARGES
-------------
Interest cost ..................................................      $      7,486    $     4,914
Amortization of debt expense....................................               383            303
Preferred stock dividends.......................................                --             --
                                                                      ------------    -----------

Total fixed charges ............................................      $      7,869    $     5,217
                                                                      ============    ===========

Ratio of earnings to combined  fixed  charges and  preferred
    stock dividends ............................................              1.50           1.29
                                                                      ============    ===========

Excess of earnings to combined  fixed  charges and preferred
    stock dividends ............................................      $      3,936    $     1,522
                                                                      ============    ===========

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

United States of America

V .

Stephen M . Butler

Criminal No . 06-cr-47-01-JD

O R D E R

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

40) 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 . § 3161 (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 : December 5, 200 7

cc : Mark S . Zuckerman , Esq .

Harry Batchelder, Esq .

U .S . Marsha l

U .S . Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00047-JD Document 41 Filed 12/05/07 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                    AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  RULE 13A-14(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
                                     OF 1934


         The undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of EduLink,
Inc. ("EduLink"), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of EduLink on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of EduLink. This
written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed original of this statement has been
provided to EduLink and will be retained by EduLink and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


   Date: June 4, 2008             By: /s/ Ian Rescigno
                                      --------------------------
                                      IAN RESCIGNO
                                      Chief Executive Officer and
                                      Chief Financial Officer
2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Case No. DA 20-0423 STATE OF MONTANA

Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. RICHARD EDWARD ADSIT,JR.,

Defendant and Appellant. 

# : NOV 2 3 2020

BOV.t.:11 Greenwood Cleru of Supreme Court State of Montane ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION On Appeal from the Montana Tenth Judicial District Court, Cascade County,Cause No.DC-23-2018-07 Upon consideration ofthe Appellant's Motion for Extension and good cause appearing: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the transcripts shall be transmitted on or before December 31, 2020 and the Appellant's Opening Briefshall be filed with the court on or before February 2, 2021. DATED this 23 day of k) , 2020.

Montana Supreme Court

Order Granting Motion for Extension - 1 11/23/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0423

### 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 

### cc: Meghan LulfSutton,Attorney for Appellant

Heather Perry,Judith Basin C?unty Attomey Montana Attorney General Titp Fox Tenth Judicial District Court,Judith Basin County

Order Granting Motion for Extension - 2
Exhibit 4.3


 


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated August 23, 2019, with respect to the financial statement of Smart Trust 443 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-231497) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


August 23, 2019
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CLIFTON D. REINOEHL,

Defendant.

4:23CR3066

ORDER

After a review of the record, I find that the above-named defendant is 

eligible for appointment of counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, 18 

U.S.C. §3006A, and Amended Criminal Justice Act Plan for the District of 

Nebraska.

IT IS ORDERED:

The Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska is appointed to 

represent the above named defendant in this matter. In the event that the 

Federal Public Defender accepts this appointment, the Federal Public Defender 

shall forthwith file an appearance in this matter. In the event the Federal Public 

Defender should decline this appointment for reason of conflict or on the basis of 

the Criminal Justice Act Plan, the Federal Public Defender shall forthwith provide 

the court with a draft appointment order (CJA Form 20) bearing the name and 

other identifying information of the CJA Panel attorney identified in accordance 

with the Criminal Justice Act Plan for this district.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall provide a copy of this 

order to the Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska.

DATED this 19th day of May, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cr-03066-JMG-CRZ Doc # 15 Filed: 05/19/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-185-01-JD

Christopher Hoggard

O R D E R

On May 3, 2013, defendant appeared for a preliminary 

hearing/probable cause hearing under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 on 

two alleged violations of conditions of supervision, as charged 

in the government's petition dated May 2, 2013 (doc. no. 66). 

Defendant is on release from his convictions in 2007 for six 

counts of distribution of cocaine base crack and one count of 

distribution of five or more grams of cocaine base crack, all in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a).

Defendant stipulated to probable cause on the violations. 

I therefore find probable cause that defendant has violated the 

conditions as charged in the petition.

Defendant sought bail conditions under Rule 32.1(a)(6). The 

government sought detention. Under Rule 32.1(a)(6), defendant 

bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing 

evidence that he will not flee and that he poses no danger to 

any other person or to the community. At the hearing, the court 

Case 1:06-cr-00185-JD Document 72 Filed 05/06/13 Page 1 of 3
2

summarized its findings orally from the bench. Those oral 

findings are incorporated herein. Based on the evidence 

presented at today's hearing, and for the reasons stated on the 

record, defendant has failed to meet his burden of persuading 

the court that he poses no danger to any other person or to the 

community. 

In sum, the court finds that defendant did not meet his

burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that his

release, even on strict conditions, would pose no danger to any 

other person or the community. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that 

the defendant be detained pending a final revocation hearing. 

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 

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 

Case 1:06-cr-00185-JD Document 72 Filed 05/06/13 Page 2 of 3
3

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection 

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

 

Landya B. McCafferty

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 6, 2013

 

cc: Jay Markell, Esq.

Mark S. Zuckerman, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00185-JD Document 72 Filed 05/06/13 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.2
FISCAL 2020 EXECUTIVE OFFICER BONUS PLAN AND EQUITY COMPENSATION


Bonus Plan


For the 12-month period ending June 30, 2020, each executive officer of Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) is eligible to receive cash incentive compensation pursuant to the Fiscal 2020 Executive Officer Bonus Plan (the “Bonus Plan”), based on the Company’s achievement of revenue and Adjusted EBITDA financial goals for such period. Adjusted EBITDA is defined as EBITDA with stock compensation added back into the calculation. In addition, Adjusted EBITDA may be further adjusted by the Human Resources and Compensation Committee to include or exclude the events set forth in Section 7(b) of the Company’s 2017 Equity Incentive Plan and other unforeseen expenses. Target bonus amounts are weighted 75% for the revenue goal and 25% for the Adjusted EBITDA goal. Target bonus levels as a percentage of base salary are 115% for the Chief Executive Officer, 100% for the Chief Operating Officer, 75% for the Chief Financial Officer and General Counsel, and 50% for the other executive officers. Depending upon the Company’s performance against the goals, participants are eligible to earn up to 200% of each of the Adjusted EBITDA and revenue portions of their target bonus amount. The Bonus Plan criteria are the same for all of the executive officers.


Long-Term Incentive Plan


Each executive officer of the Company received grants of restricted stock under the fiscal 2020 long-term incentive plan on August 9, 2019.  The restricted stock grants were based on a target equity percentage of each executive officer’s base salary, with 40% of such target amount allocated to time-vesting restricted stock and 60% of such target amount allocated to performance-vesting restricted stock; provided, that the performance-vesting restricted stock was granted to each executive officer at 200% of the target number of shares allocated to performance-vesting restricted stock, and any shares not earned will be forfeited upon confirmation of performance achievement. Target equity grants as a percentage of base salary are 450% for the Chief Executive Officer, 200% for the Chief Operating Officer, 150% for the Chief Financial Officer, and 125% for the other named executive officers. 


The time-vesting restricted stock grants will vest in equal installments of 1/3 in August 2020, 2021 and 2022. The performance-vesting restricted stock grants will vest based on the Company’s total shareholder return relative to total shareholder return of the Company’s peer group (as determined by the Human Resources and Compensation Committee), as measured by the closing prices of the Company’s stock and the stock of the peer group members for the 90 trading days preceding July 1, 2019 compared to the closing prices of the Company’s stock and the stock of the peer group members for the 90 trading days preceding July 1, 2022. Vesting of the performance-vesting shares will be determined on the date that the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022 is filed.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Douglas Moran, Royal Bodkin, LLC and Woolworth 

Interests, LLC v. Richard Williamson d/b/a Williamson 

Realty

Appellate case number: 01-14-00928-CV

Trial court case number: 2011-45234

Trial court: 11th District Court of Harris County

On May 8, 2015, the above-referenced appeal was stayed due to bankruptcy. See

11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (2011); TEX. R. APP. P. 8.1, 8.2. On July 8, 2015, the appellants, 

Douglas Moran, Royal Bodkin, LLC and Woolworth Interests, LLC, filed a motion to 

reinstate the appeal and attached an order from the United States Bankruptcy Court 

dismissing their bankruptcy petitions. Appellants therefore request that we reinstate this 

appeal.

Accordingly, we GRANT appellants’ motion and REINSTATE this case on the 

Court’s active docket. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.3(a). 

Because appellants’ brief was filed on April 6, 2015, appellee’s brief, if any, is

ORDERED to be filed within 30 days of the date of this Order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 

38.6(b), (d).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: _July 28, 2015
EX-10.2(b)






 Exhibit 10.2(b) 

[***] Certain information in this document has been excluded pursuant to Regulation S-K, Item 601(b)(10). Such
excluded information is not material and would likely cause competitive harm to the registrant if publicly disclosed. 
 AMENDMENT NO. l

 TO LICENSING AND ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT 

This Amendment No. l (“Amendment No. l”) to the Licensing and Assignment Agreement by and between Satsuma Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(“Company”) and Shin Nippon Biomedical Laboratories, Ltd. (“SNBL”) of June 30, 2016 (the “Agreement”) is dated as of January 13, 2017 (“Amendment No. l Effective Date”)

  

	A.	 Company and SNBL have previously entered into the Agreement and now wish to amend certain provisions.



  

	B.	 Company and SNBL desire that all other terms and conditions of the Agreement to remain in full force and
effect. 


 For good and valuable consideration, Company and SNBL hereby agree as follows: 

 

	1.	 Amendment to the Agreement. 



 

	 	a.	 The Parties agree to amend and revise ARTICLE 5 as follows (changes shown in bold):



 5.1 Reimbursement. Within [***] days of the Closing Date, SATSUMA shall reimburse SNBL for all of
SNBL’s costs and expenses (actual and internal) incurred prior to the [***] Closing Date relating to: (a) the incorporation of SATSUMA, and (b) the Prosecution and Maintenance of the Product-Specific Patents; provided that the
aggregate amount to be reimbursed under clause (a) shall not exceed $[***]. 
  

	2.	 Miscellaneous. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning given to
them in the Agreement. This Amendment No. l will be effective for all purposes as of the Amendment No. l Effective Date. This Amendment No. l may be executed in two counterparts, including by facsimile or electronically transmitted copies, each of
which will be deemed to be an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. 


 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Parties have caused this Amendment No. l to be signed by their respective duly authorized representatives as of the Amendment Effective Date. 
  

			
	SATSUMA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.	  	 SHIN NIPPON BIOMEDICAL

LABORATORIES, LTD.

		
	By: /s/ John Kollins                        	  	By: /s/ Shunji Haruta                        
	Printed Name: John Kollins	  	Printed Name: Shunji Haruta
	Title: President & CEO	  	Title: General Manager, TR Company
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40854 Conference Calendar

DAVID PARDUE, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus N.L. CONNER, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Texarkana, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:98-CV-153

- - - - - - - - - - April 16, 1999 Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * David Pardue, federal prisoner #04062-010, appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his habeas corpus petition for lack of jurisdiction. Pardue filed his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. However, Pardue is challenging the legality of his conviction and sentence, rather than the execution of his sentence. The district court properly construed Pardue’s petition as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentenceNo. 98-40854 -2- under § 2255. Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I. , 821 F.2d 1129, 1131-32 (5th Cir. 1987). Pardue filed his § 2255 motion in the district court for the Eastern District of Texas. He was sentenced, however, in the district court for the Western District of Arkansas. Thus, the only court with jurisdiction to entertain Pardue’s motion is the district court for the Western District of Arkansas. See Ojo v. I.N.S. , 106 F.3d 680, 683 (5th Cir. 1997). The district court did not err by dismissing without prejudice Pardue’s § 2255 motion for lack of jurisdiction. See Solsona , 821 F.2d at 1132. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.