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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-254-JD

FNU LNU a/k/a Jimmy Oshunkey

O R D E R

The defendant is currently detained pending sentencing

following a jury trial. Counsel for the defendant has filed a

motion, assented to by the government, seeking an order pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 4244 directing that the defendant undergo

psychiatric or psychological evaluations to determine his present

mental condition. Based on the representations made in the

motion, the court is of the opinion that the defendant may be

presently suffering from a mental disease or defect requiring

custodial care or treatment. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney

General for placement in a suitable facility for the purpose of

an examination pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4244(b) and 4247(b), for a

period not to exceed thirty days. 

A report shall be filed with the court with copies provided

to the government and counsel for the defendant in accordance

with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4247(c).

Case 1:05-cr-00254-JD Document 50 Filed 01/29/07 Page 1 of 2
2

A hearing shall be scheduled after the report has been

filed.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

District Judge

January 29, 2007

cc: Alfred J.T. Rubega, Esquire

R. Brian Snow, Esquire

Case 1:05-cr-00254-JD Document 50 Filed 01/29/07 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1357 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1357

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 
            subpart F exemption for active financing income.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 3, 2001

   Mr. McCrery (for himself, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Brady of 
 Pennsylvania, Mr. Camp, Mr. Crane, Ms. Dunn, Mr. English, Mr. Foley, 
 Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Herger, Mr. Houghton, Mr. Hulshof, Mrs. Johnson of 
   Connecticut, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Kleczka, Mr. Lewis of 
  Kentucky, Mr. Matsui, Mr. McDermott, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. 
Ramstad, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Tanner, Mr. Watkins, and 
 Mr. Weller) 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 permanently extend the 
            subpart F exemption for active financing income.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT SUBPART F EXEMPTION FOR ACTIVE FINANCING INCOME.

    (a) Banking, Financing, or Similar Businesses.--Subsection (h) of 
section 954 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special 
rule for income derived in the active conduct of banking, financing, or 
similar businesses) is amended by striking paragraph (9).
    (b) Insurance Businesses.--Subsection (e) of section 953 of such 
Code (relating to exempt insurance income) is amended by striking 
paragraph (10) and by redesignating paragraph (11) as paragraph (10).
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years of a foreign corporation beginning after 
December 31, 2001, and to taxable years of United States shareholders 
with or within which such taxable years of such foreign corporation 
end.
                                 <all>
```
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




September 2008


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: December 30, 2008
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32

             LIFESTYLE INNOVATIONS, INC FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER
      ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
          CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Paul Johnson, certify that

1.   I am the Acting Chief Executive Officer and principal accounting officer of
     LifeStyle Innovations, Inc.

2.   Attached to this certification is Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
     December 31, 2003, a periodic report (the "periodic report") filed by the
     issuer with the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"),
     which contains financial statements.

3.   I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
     to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that

     o    The periodic report containing the financial statements fully complies
          with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act,
          and

     o    The information in the periodic report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the issuer for the periods presented.

March 19, 2004                               /s/ Paul Johnson
                                             ---------------------------
                                             Paul Johnson
                                             President, Acting CEO
                                             (and equivalent of CFO)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by LifeStyle Innovations, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification will not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that
section. This certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 even if the document with which it is submitted to the Securities and
Exchange Commission is so incorporated by reference.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-153-01-SM

Nicholas Spears

O R D E R

Defendant Spears’ motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial

is granted (document 27). Trial has been rescheduled for the April 2006 trial

period. Defendant Spears 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 9:30 a.m.

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

Case 1:05-cr-00153-PB Document 30 Filed 12/14/05 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Steven J. McAuliffe

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

December 14, 2005

cc: Jorel Booker, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00153-PB Document 30 Filed 12/14/05 Page 2 of 2
179 La. 187

#### HIGGINS LUMBER & EXPORT CO., Inc., v. RHEA.

No. 31993.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1934.

Hugh M. Wilkinson and A. Miles Coe, both of New Orleans, for appellant.

Alvin R. Christovich and Leslie P. Beard (Beard & O’Keefe), both of New Orleans, for appellee.

OVERTON, Justice.

On February 2, 1934, defendant and appel-lee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal herein, reading as follows:

“1. That there are before the court at this time no proper parties to sustain the present appeal, and ho one interested in the prosecution of said appeal, and that said appeal should be dismissed.

“2. That there remains nothing before this court for contest, and that a judgment, if rendered, would be without effect and unen-forcible by any one presently before this court.”

The motion rests on the grounds that while the suit was pending and before the trial thereof a receiver was appointed for plaintiff, who was substituted, prior to trial, as party plaintiff. Pending the appeal, it is alleged that, as appears from a certified cops’ of the judgment attached, the receiver was discharged, and his bond ordered to be canceled, thus closing the receivership.

On the same day on which the motion to dismiss was filed, a motion was filed by R. A. Flautt, who alleges that he is the assignee of all the accounts, claims, and actions of the receiver, including the receiver’s rights in the present suit, which were acquired, it is said, by him at receiver’s sale, moved to substitute himself as a party to this suit in the place of the receiver. He later amended the motion, ánd attached extracts from the receivership proceedings purporting to show his acquisition of this action, and reaffirmed the prayer of his original motion, and prayed in the alternative that the casé be remanded so that these facts might be shown.

There is no occasion to dismiss the appeal in view of the foregoing efforts to make proper parties to it. We think, however, that action on the motion to substitute Flautt as party plaintiff or to dispose of the matter *688finally should not be taken until an opportunity be given both sides to produce the facts necessary to show whether or not Elautt should be substituted, and to incorporate them in the record, the record when completed to be returned to this court, without the rendition of further judgment, on the present appeal.

The record is remanded to permit the showing of the foregoing facts, transpiring since the appeal was taken, the record when completed to be returned to this court promptly, without the rendition of further judgment, on the present appeal.

ST. PAUL, J., absent.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-68- 01-JD

Christopher Kafejelis

O R D E R

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

30) 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. § 3131(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: August 9, 2007

cc: Patrick J. Richard, Esq.

Terry L. Ollila, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00068-JD Document 31 Filed 08/08/07 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Covance
consolidated financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2000 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                            0001023131
<NAME>                         Covance Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                              1
<CURRENCY>                              USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                           13,461,000
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                   210,354,000
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                      28,676,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                313,864,000
<PP&E>                          544,286,000
<DEPRECIATION>                  239,786,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  721,666,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           194,440,000
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                            592,000
<OTHER-SE>                      274,386,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    721,666,000
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                209,627,000
<CGS>                           145,924,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   189,703,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   (381,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                2,892,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  17,413,000
<INCOME-TAX>                      6,774,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              10,639,000
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                     10,639,000
<EPS-BASIC>                            0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.19


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-204-01-SM

Jesse Harless

O R D E R

Defendant Harless’ motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

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

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

than February 2, 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: April 21, 2006 at 3:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: May 2, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:05-cr-00204-SM Document 8 Filed 01/25/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

January 25, 2006

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Arnold Huftalen, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00204-SM Document 8 Filed 01/25/06 Page 2 of 2
atax-ex101_8.htm



Exhibit 10.1

 

RELEASE OF INTEREST IN INTEREST RATE CAP

 

 

 

 

WHERAS, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the "Bank") previously entered into that certain rate cap agreement dated July 8, 2015, with ATAX TEBS III, LLC (the "Counterparty); (the "Cap"), with a reference number of 16900928; and

 

WHEREAS, the Cap was collaterally assigned to The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Secured Lender") in connection with a pool of multifamily bonds ("Bonds"); and

 

WHEREAS, the Counterparty's obligations under the Bonds have been discharged.

 

The Secured Lender hereby releases all right, title and interest (including any security interest) it has in the Cap as of August 19, 2019, and waives any right to approve a termination, modification or novation of the Cap on or after such date. 

 

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL HOME LOAN

MORTGAGE CORPORATION

 

By:/s/ Thomas C. McDonald

Thomas C. McDonald

Director, Multifamily Asset Management
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Fallen, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), rendered February 7, 1985.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9; *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

We have considered the contention raised by the appellant in his supplemental *pro se*brief and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




June 1998


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: June 30, 2008
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### STATE ex rel. EDWARDS v. PORTER et al.

No. 1515.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 29, 1935.

Thos. Arthur Edwards, of Lake Charles, in pro. per.

PER CURIAM.

The relator is the defendant in a suit instituted in the lower court in which the plaintiffs seek to obtain a judgment against him on certain promissory notes and further to have recognized a certain mortgage securing the same and decreeing the same executory against the property mortgaged.

Relator, upon service being made, petitioned the court for an order to stay all proceedings on the ground that he wished to avail himself of the provisions of Act No. 1S9 of the Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature for the year 1934. The act mentioned is one authorizing the suspension of all laws relative to the judicial sales of mortgaged real estate during a certain period therein specified.

The prayer of the relator’s petition is for an order on the attorneys for the plaintiffs commanding them to show cause within the time provided in the statute why a moratorium should not issue with suspension and stay of all other proceedings until January 1, 1936, or for such period of time as the court may grant.

The district judge refused to issue the order as prayed for, whereupon the relator presented this application for the necessary- writs commanding the district judge to grant him the relief prayed for.

The Supreme Court in the case of Putnam & Norman, Inc., v. Lucius P. Levee, reported in 179 La. 180, 153 So. 685, 686, has clearly defined the power of the Courts of Appeal in this state to control district courts. It is therein made plain that the Courts of Appeal have supervisory jurisdiction over district courts to the extent only of compelling them to perform such functions as are necessary to enable a litigant to take and perfect his appeal. “This means,” says the court, “that in all cases appealable to the Courts of Appeal, those courts may issue remedial orders directing district judges to perform such official functions or to permit litigants to take such steps as may -be necessary to enable them to get their cases up on appeal so that those courts may exercise their appellate jurisdiction.”

It is apparent, from the statements herein made, that such is not the relief the relator in this case is seeking to obtain from this court, and we are therefore compelled to refuse to grant the order as prayed for by him.
#### Packer’s Estate

(No. 3).

Argued April 3d, 1914.

Appeal, No. 111, Jan. T., 1914, by Garrett B. Linderman, 3d, from decree of O. C., Philadelphia Co., April T., 1881, No. 323, dismissing exceptions to adjudication in estate of Asa Packer, de*130ceased.

Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Potter, Elkin and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

Exceptions to adjudication. Before Gummey, J.

The facts appear in Packer’s Est. (No. 1), 246 Pa. 97, and Packer’s Est. (No. 2), 246 Pa. 116.

The court in banc dismissed the exceptions. Garrett B. Linderman, 3d, appealed.

*Error assigned*was the decree of the court.

*Biddle, Paul & Jayne*filed a paper book for appellant.

*W. U. Hensel,*for Ruth M. Linderman, executrix of the estate of Robert P. Linderman, deceased, Ruth Evelyn Linderman, Mary Evelyn Linderman, Evelyn Linderman, Christine Linderman and Robert Packer Linderman, Jr., Warren A. Wilbur, executor of the estate of Sallie Linderman Wilbur, deceased, and Robert E. Wilbur, appellees.

*W. W. Montgomery, Jr.,*for Louise D. Rathbun, executrix of the estate of Robert Rathbun.

*Joseph Hill Brinton*filed a paper book for the executors and legatees of John E. Rathbun, appellees.

*J. Davis Brodhead*filed a paper book for the executors of the estates of E. P. Wilbur, W. W. Wilbur, Helena Rathbun and Hattie Fitch, deceased, appellees.

July 1, 1914:

Opinion of

Mr. Justice Moschzisker,

The appellant, Garrett B. Linderman, 3d, contends that he has an interest in the determination of the question here involved because he is one of the beneficiaries of the trust held by the Girard Trust Company for Garrett B. Linderman, Jr., and others; this trust being more particularly referred to in Packer’s Est. (No. 2). He *131states the question involved to be: “Was it testator’s (Asa Packer) intention that the gift to nephews and nieces under paragraph 31 of his will should vest in interest at the time of his death and pass to their personal representatives in the event of their death prior to the period fixed by him for the distribution of the corpus of the trust fund; or was it his intention to create a future gift to nephews and nieces which would lapse in the event of their death before said period fixed by him for distribution.”

All the points raised by the appellant have already been decided against his contentions in an opinion this day filed in Packer’s Est. (No. 2).

The appeal is dismissed; the costs to be paid by the appellant and others as ordered by the Orphans’ Court when the record is remitted to it.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 LOUIE CASIAS,

3 Protestant-Appellant,

4 v. NO. A-1-CA-36489

5

6 NEW MEXICO TAXATION AND

7 REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

8 Respondent-Appellee.

9 IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF LOUIE CASIAS

10 TO NOTICE OF CLAIM OF TAX LIEN ISSUED UNDER 

11 LETTER ID NO. L1687629360.

12 APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE

13 Chris Romero, Hearing Officer

14 Wayne G. Chew, P.C.

15 Wayne G. Chew

16 Albuquerque, NM

17 for Appellant

18 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

19 Jama E. Fisk, Special Assistant Attorney General

20 Santa Fe, NM

21 for Appellee
2

1 MEMORANDUM OPINION

2 VANZI, Chief Judge.

3 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

4 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has

5 been filed and the time for doing so has expired.

6 {2} AFFIRMED.

7 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 _______________________________

9 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge

10 WE CONCUR:

11 _________________________________

12 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge

13 _________________________________

14 JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge