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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-034-01-PB

Quenta Parker

O R D E R

The defendant apparently seeks to reduce his sentence based

upon a 2007 amendment to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines

regarding cocaine base offenses ("2007 Crack Cocaine

Amendment"). For the reasons stated below, the motion to reduce 1

sentence (document no. 142) is DENIED.

On May 1, 2007, the United States Sentencing Commission (the

"Commission") submitted to Congress an amendment to the Federal

Sentencing Guidelines that lowers the guideline sentencing range

for certain categories of offenses involving crack cocaine. 

Specifically, the amendment adjusts downward by two levels the

base offense level assigned to each threshold quantity of crack

cocaine listed in the Drug Quantity Table in §2D1.1 and provides

The defendant previously filed a motion seeking the 1

appointment of counsel to pursue a sentence reduction based upon

the 2010 Crack Cocaine Amendment, which was denied on February

28, 2012. 

Case 1:06-cr-00034-PB Document 143 Filed 11/05/12 Page 1 of 2
a mechanism for determining the guideline range for offenses

involving crack cocaine and other controlled substances. This

amendment took effect November 1, 2007.

The defendant was sentenced on November 27, 2007, after the

effective date of the 2007 Crack Cocaine Amendment. Thus, the

court considered the 2007 Crack Cocaine Amendment at the time of

sentencing and, as a result, the defendant is entitled to no

further reduction in his sentence calculation. Therefore, the

defendant’s motion to reduce sentence (document no. 142) is

DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Date: November 5, 2012 /s/ Paul J. Barbadoro

Paul J. Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Quenta Parker, pro se

Counsel of Record

2

Case 1:06-cr-00034-PB Document 143 Filed 11/05/12 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CHRISTOPHER KARSTEN,

Defendant.

4:23CR3063

ORDER

Defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (Filing No. 

15), because Defendant and defense counsel need additional time to fully review 

the discovery. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set 

forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1) Defendant’s motion to continue, (Filing No. 15), is granted.

2) Pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before August 31,

2023.

3) The conference call previously scheduled to be held on July 12,

2023, is continued. A telephonic conference with counsel will be held

before the undersigned magistrate judge at 9:15 a.m. on September

7, 2023 to discuss setting any pretrial motion hearing needed, a

change of plea hearing, or the date of the jury trial and deadlines for

disclosing experts as required under Rule 16. Counsel for all parties

shall use the conferencing instructions provided by the court to

participate in the call.

4) The ends of justice served by granting the motion to continue

outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy

trial, and the additional time arising as a result of the granting of the

motion, the time between today’s date and September 7, 2023 shall

be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the

4:23-cr-03063-JMG-CRZ Doc # 16 Filed: 06/30/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 30
requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because although counsel 

have been duly diligent, additional time is needed to adequately 

prepare this case for trial and failing to grant additional time might 

result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1) & (h)(7). 

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 30th day of June, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cr-03063-JMG-CRZ Doc # 16 Filed: 06/30/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 31
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. 09-40856 c/w

No. 09-40859

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOEL MENDOZA-MATA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:09-CR-331-1

USDC No. 1:08-CR-1194-1

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Defendant-Appellant

Joel Mendoza-Mata has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Mendoza-Mata has

not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief

discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 15, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 09-40856 Document: 00511080789 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/15/2010
No. 09-40856 c/w

No. 09-40859

2

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the consolidated APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Case: 09-40856 Document: 00511080789 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/15/2010
[J-79-2014] [MO: Baer, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**IN THE INTEREST OF: D.C.D., MINOR**

**APPEAL OF: CLINTON COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **No. 56 MAP 2014 Appeal from from the order of the Superior**  **Court dated April 23, 2014 at No. 1484 MDA 2013 which reversed the Decree of**  **the Clinton County Court of Common Pleas, Orphans Division, dated July 23,**  **2013 at No. 12-2012. SUBMITTED: July 29, 2014** 

CONCURRING OPINION

MR. JUSTICE EAKIN DECIDED: December 15, 2014 **I agree with the majority’s reversal of the Superior Court’s decision and** 

**reinstatement of the trial court’s termination of fath er’s parental rights. I write separately**  **solely to distance myself from the majority’s examinatio n of other possible remedies**  **when faced with an agency that fails to provide reasona ble efforts to reunite child and**  **parent. Neither § 2511 of the Adoption Act**  **1 nor § 6531 of the Juvenile Act**  **2 preclude a**  **court from ordering the termination of parental righ ts where a child-welfare agency fails**  **to provide reasonable efforts to promote reunification . Incorporating a reasonable**  **efforts requirement at the termination-of-parental-r ights stage would do nothing more**  **than improperly punish children, as their placement in foster care would be unjustly**  **lengthened solely as a result of an agency’s deficiencie s. Thus, I agree with the** 

**1 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511.** 

**2 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351.** **[J-79-2014] [MO: Baer, J.] - 2**

**majority’s conclusion that it is erroneous to refuse a pro perly proven termination-of**  **parental-rights petition based on the failure to empl oy reasonable reunification efforts. I**  **further agree the trial court here did not abuse its discretion in terminating father’s**  **parental rights. Notably, this Court granted review to consider whether**  **an agency’s lack of reasonable efforts requires reversal of an otherwise-esta**  **blished termination petition. Yet, after determining faults of an agency do not inh**  **ibit termination — thereby deciding the issue we granted — the majority elaborates further**  **by describing potential remedies or financial penalties that courts might impose against a**  **gencies neglecting to make reasonable efforts and follow court orders and permanen**  **cy goals. See Majority Slip Op., at 23-24. In my view, the majority’s discussion, p**  **articularly as to federal reimbursements and federal funding available to child-**  **welfare services, serves only as dictum; it is inapposite to the instant case and beyond**  **the scope of the issues we granted. Thus, I concur.**  **Mr. Justice Stevens joins this concurring opinion.**
#### BATEMAN et al. v. LOUISIANA HIGHWAY COMMISSION.

No. 2294.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Nov. 19, 1941.

Arthur B. Hammond and Tom M. Hayes, Jr., both of Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Ellis, Ellis & Barranger, of Covington, Talley & Talley, of Bogalusa, and Pugh, Lanier & Pugh, of Thibodaux, for appel-lees.

DORE, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the consolidated cases of Charles M. Warnick and others v. Louisiana Highway Commission, 4 So.2d 607, this day handed down, it is ordered that the judgment appealed from be amended by increasing the sum award*615ed from $8,000 to $10,000 to each of the said plaintiffs, thus making a total award of $20,000 to the plaintiffs, with the further award of $60 to plaintiff Murphy Bateman, and as thus amended affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

David T . Veale and

Leasha Veale ,

Plaintiff s

V .

Robert T . Furness . DVM and

Apple Tree Animal Hospital ,

Defendants

O R D E R

Plaintif

-md. -i/-5~+'1

is a restricted filer and must obtain leave o f

court before filing any new complaint . See Order dated

September 1, 1999, Civil No . 02-020-M .

Having reviewed the proposed complaint, it is apparent that

the subject matter differs from, and is unrelated to, the

previous litigation that led to the order restricting plaintiff'E

filings . Accordingly, plaintiff may file the proposed complaint .

That is not to say, however, that the complaint properly

invokes federal jurisdiction or is of any merit ; merely that the

proposed complaint does not implicate any issues previously

litigated . The complaint will be reviewed in the normal course .

Case 1:06-cv-00419-PB Document 2 Filed 11/08/2006 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED .

November 8, 200 6

cc : David T . Veale, pro se

Leasha Veale, pro se

even J ! McAuliff e

Chief Judg e

2

Case 1:06-cv-00419-PB Document 2 Filed 11/08/2006 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Charles Marich

v. Case No. 04-cv-334-PB

Western Carpet & Linoleum Co.

of New England

NOTICE OF RULING

Re: Document No. 52, Motion for Disclosure of 

Additional Affidavit in Support of Objection

to Motions for Summary Judgment 

Ruling: I deny the motion for two independent reasons.

First, the plaintiff has failed to justify his failure to produce

the affidavit with his objection to defendant's summary judgement

motion. Plaintiff did not make any attempt to locate the witness

until more than a month after the defendant filed its summary

judgement motion and less than two weeks before his objection to

the motion was due. This delay is inexcusable and warrants the

denial of the motion. The motion is also denied because it is

futile. The only potentially relevant information contained in the

affidavit is inadmissible hearsay. Statements attributed to Mr.

Hemming were not made within the scope of his employment and

therefore are not admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D). 

The clerk shall sate a date for the completion of the

hearing on the summary judgement motion. 

Date: February 17, 2006

cc: Leslie Johnson, Esq.

 Todd Reed, Esq.

 Allison Romantz, Esq.

 Mark Whitney, Esq.

Case 1:04-cv-00334-PB Document 56 Filed 02/17/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William J. Carey

v. 06-cv-262-SM

Joseph A. Winguay

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated November 8, 2006, for the

reasons set forth therein. Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed without

prejudice. Plaintiff’s motions for alternative service are also denied.

SO ORDERED.

February 13, 2007 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: William J. Carey, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00262-SM Document 12 Filed 02/13/07 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EDULINK, INC. AS OF AND FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30,
2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         2,681,644
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,709,029
<PP&E>                                         8,285
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,717,314
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,168,996
<BONDS>                                        200,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       754,648
<OTHER-SE>                                     793,670
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,717,314
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               5,409,308
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (46,963)<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,362,345)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,362,345)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.01)
<FN>
<F1>  FIGURE REPRESENTS INTEREST INCOME
</FN>


</TABLE>
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1483

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance programs, and for other

purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. SHAW, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. KILDEE, Ms. WATERS, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. CAMP, Ms. LEE, Mr. FROST, Mr.

UDALL of Colorado, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. BARCIA, Mr. FILNER, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. MOAKLEY,

Mr. FOLEY, Mr. DOYLE, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr. HOUGHTON, Mr.

EVANS, Mrs. THURMAN, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. ETHERIDGE, Mr. WALSH,

Mr. SAWYER, Mr. SIMMONS, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. JEFFERSON, Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. HORN, Ms. RIVERS, Mr. COYNE, Mr. BALDACCI, Ms.

BALDWIN, Mr. FARR of California, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. DINGELL, and Mr. TIERNEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make

permanent the exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance programs, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Employee Educational

5 Assistance Act’’.
2

•HR 1483 IH

1 SEC. 2. EMPLOYER–PROVIDED EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE

2 PROGRAMS.

3 (a) PERMANENT EXTENSION.—Section 127 of the

4 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exclusion for

5 educational assistance programs) is amended by striking

6 subsection (d) and by redesignating subsection (e) as sub7 section (d).

8 (b) REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON GRADUATE EDU9 CATION.—The last sentence of section 127(c)(1) of such

10 Code is amended by striking ‘‘, and such term also does

11 not include any payment for, or the provision of any bene12 fits with respect to, any graduate level course of a kind

13 normally taken by an individual pursuing a program lead14 ing to a law, business, medical, or other advanced aca15 demic or professional degree’’.

16 (c) EFFECTIVE DATES.—

17 (1) EXTENSION.—The amendments made by

18 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to expenses

19 relating to courses beginning after the date of enact20 ment of this Act.

21 (2) GRADUATE EDUCATION.—The amendment

22 made by subsection (b) shall apply with respect to

23 expenses relating to courses beginning after Decem24 ber 31, 1998.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-172-01-SM

Douglas Heath

O R D E R

Defendant Bennett’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 10). Trial has been rescheduled for the February 

2007 trial period. Defendant Heath shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than October 31, 2006. 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: January 29, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: February 6, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00172-SM Document 11 Filed 10/20/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

October 20, 2006

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Helen Fitzgibbon, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00172-SM Document 11 Filed 10/20/06 Page 2 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-4018

___________

Leugene Cash Bettis, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Teamsters Brewery Workers Pension *

Plan, St. Louis, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: June 14, 1999

Filed: June 21, 1999

___________

Before BOWMAN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Leugene Cash Bettis appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary

judgment in Bettis's action to recover pension benefits under the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act. After careful review of the record and the parties' submissions,

we conclude that no error of law appears in the district court's ruling and that an

extended discussion is unnecessary. Contrary to Bettis's view, the record is clear that

Bettis was not eligible for pension benefits under the St. Louis Teamsters Brewery

Workers Pension Plan because she was not an employee of a participating union

employer. We thus affirm the district court's ruling. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
|EXHIBIT 15







Accountants Acknowledgment


Linens n Things, Inc.
Clifton, New Jersey


Board of Directors:


Re:   Registration Statements Numbers 333-89250 
     on Form S-3 and 333-71903, 333-55803, 333-42874, 333-62982
     and 333-62984 on Form S-8.


With respect to the subject
registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report
dated July 17, 2002 related to our review of interim financial information.


Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the
Securities Act of 1933, such report is not considered a part of a registration statement
prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant
within the meaning of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.


KPMG LLP


New York, New York
August 12, 2002
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906**

**Of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersignedofficers of Rand Capital Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2022 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirement ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company. 

Dated: November 7, 2022 

 

/s/ Daniel P. Penberthy

Daniel P. Penberthy, Chief Executive Officer and President

(Chief Executive Officer)

Dated: November 7, 2022 

 

/s/ Margaret W. Brechtel

Margaret W. Brechtel, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

(Chief Financial Officer)
**
#### D. M. CHARLES et al. v. Morris STRUG.

No. 3421.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 29, 1951.

Dan W. Graves, Jr., Bogalusa, for appellant.

Ott & Watts, Franklinton, for appellee.

DORÉ, Judge.

For the reasons this day,handed down in the consolidated cases of Strug v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Hartford, Connecticut and Charles v. Strug, La.App., 53 So.2d 437, the judgment appealed from in this case is affirmed at the costs of defendant-appellant.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7283
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES EDWARD MCGILL, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-9, CA-96-481-2) Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 25, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward McGill, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no re versible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. McGill , Nos. CR-94-9; CA-96-481-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 2, 1996). We f urther deny Appellant's motion to remand the case. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED