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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Randy S . Campney Sr.

V .

Bare Hill Correctional Facility. Superintendent

Civil No. 06-cv-297-JD

ORDER

On November 17, 2008, the Court ordered Mr . Campney to advise the Court by December

10, 2008 whether or not he was going to appeal the Grafton County Superior Court decision denying

his Motion for a New Trial. On November 24, 2008, Mr. Campney advised the Court that he had

filed a Notice of Discretionary Appeal with the New Hampshire Supreme Court .

It is herewith ordered that Mr . Campney file a status report as to the status of his appeal on

or before September 15, 2009 and on the 15 'h of each month thereafter until the appeal has

concluded .

SO ORDERED.

August 18, 2009 /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: Randy S . Campney, Sr., pro se

Stephen Fuller, Esq .

Susan McGinnis, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00297-JD Document 75 Filed 08/18/09 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 46 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 46

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
         relating to incarceration for minor traffic offenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2001

Ms. Carson of Indiana introduced the following joint resolution; which 
             was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
         relating to incarceration for minor traffic offenses.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``Section 1. The eighth article of amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States is hereby repealed.
    ``Section 2. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive 
fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments (including 
incarceration, before or after trial, for minor traffic offenses) 
inflicted.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                          LINENS 'N THINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                        COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
                                         (in thousands, except per share amounts)
                                                     (unaudited)

                                                                     Thirteen Weeks Ended
                                                                 March 31,           April 1,
                                                                   2001                2000
                                                               --------------     --------------

<S>                                                              <C>                    <C>
Basic

    Weighted-average number of shares
     outstanding                                                      40,335             39,482
                                                               ==============     ==============
    Net income applicable to common shares                           $ 4,693            $ 5,055
                                                               ==============     ==============
    Per share amounts
        Net income per share                                         $  0.12            $  0.13
                                                               ==============     ==============
Diluted

    Basic weighted-average number of shares
       outstanding                                                    40,335             39,482

    Effect of outstanding stock options and
       deferred stock grants                                             990                936
                                                               --------------     --------------
    Diluted weighted-average number of shares
       outstanding                                                    41,325             40,418
                                                               ==============     ==============
    Net income applicable to common shares                           $ 4,693            $ 5,055
                                                               ==============     ==============
    Per share amounts
        Net income per share                                         $  0.11            $  0.13
                                                               ==============     ==============

</TABLE>
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o . 0 9 -4 0 8 5 6 c/w N o. 09- 40859 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. J OEL M ENDOZA- M AT A , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp eal s f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U S D C N o . 1 :09 -C R -3 3 1 -1 U SD C N o. 1: 08- C R - 1194- 1 B ef ore JO L L Y , W IE N E R , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * The Fed e r alPubl i c D e fe nde r ap po i nt e d t o r e pr e s e ntD e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant J o e l M e n d o z a -M a ta h a s m o v e dfo rle a v e to w ith d r a w a n dh a s file da b r i e f in ac c o r da nc e w i t h A n d er s v . Ca lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) . M endoz a- M at a has n otf i l ed a re sp o n se. O u r i n dep en den trevi ew of t h e rec ord an d coun sel ’ s bri ef di scl oses n o non f

rivol ou s i ssue f

or app eal . A cc ordi n gl y, coun sel ’ s m ot i on f or United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April15, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-40856 Document: 00511080789 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/15/2010N o . 0 9 -4 0 8 5 6 c/w N o. 09- 40859

2 l eave to w i t h draw i s G R A N T E D , cou n selis ex cused f rom furt h er r espon sibi l i t i es h e r e in , a n d th e co n s o lid a te d A P P E A L S A R E D IS M IS S E D . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. Case: 09-40856 Document: 00511080789 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/15/2010
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23
- 40414 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **Leonel Deleon Cuellar,** Defendant

— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:23
- CR
- 116 - 1

**_______________ _______________**  Before **Smith, Higginson,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Leonel Deleon Cuellar has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Deleon Cuellar has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief an d the relevant portions of the record reflected

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 19, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-40414 Document: 00517038944 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2024No. 23
- 40414

2 therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from furt her responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.**  42.2 . Case: 23-40414 Document: 00517038944 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2024
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 113 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.J.Res.113

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
          the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

                            Joint Resolution

 
          Recognizing the contributions of Patsy Takemoto Mink.

Whereas Patsy Takemoto Mink was one of the country's leading voices for 
  women's rights, civil rights, and working families and was devoted to 
  raising living standards and providing economic and educational 
  opportunity to all Americans;

Whereas Patsy Takemoto Mink was a passionate and persistent fighter 
  against economic and social injustices in Hawaii and across America;

Whereas Patsy Takemoto Mink was one of the first women of color to win 
  national office in 1964 and opened doors of opportunity to millions 
  of women and people of color across America;

Whereas Patsy Takemoto Mink won unprecedented legislative 
  accomplishments on issues affecting women's health, children, 
  students, and working families; and

Whereas Patsy Takemoto Mink's heroic, visionary, and tireless 
  leadership to win the landmark passage of title IX of the Education 
  Amendments of 1972 opened doors to women's academic and athletic 
  achievements and redefined what is possible for a generation of women 
  and for future generations our Nation's daughters: Now, therefore, be 
  it

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That title IX of the Education 
Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.; Public Law 92-318) may be 
cited as the ``Patsy Takemoto Mink Equal Opportunity in Education 
Act''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
UNITED DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

AMY PHILBRICK, LLC., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) Civil Action No: 06-cv-00254-JD 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

S/V NIOBE, Official No. ME5800S, ) 

her engines, machinery, equipment, ) 

masts, etc., in rem; and ) 

 ) 

The Estate of Stephen Woods, ) 

State of New Hampshire, and Deborah ) 

Woods in personam, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

ORDER FOR DISTRIBUTION OF PROCEEDS 

WHEREAS, the S/V NIOBE, Number ME5800S, was arrested by Order of this 

Court Dated July 17, 2006, and 

WHEREAS, the sale of the S/V NIOBE was confirmed by Order of this Court 

dated July 25, 2007, and 

WHEREAS, the S/V NIOBE, Number ME5800S, was sold at public auction on 

August 24, 2007, and 

WHEREAS, the vessel was sold for $9,000 to the highest bidder and the proceeds 

deposited by the U.S. Marshal under the terms of the Order for Sale of Vessel, and 

WHEREAS, the Order for Sale of the S/V NIOBE provided that the proceeds 

from the sale of the vessel, together with interest and costs, would be deposited in the 

Case 1:06-cv-00254-JD Document 42 Filed 10/09/07 Page 1 of 2
Registry of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire for 

subsequent distribution in satisfaction of judgment, and 

WHEREAS, the Motion to Confirm Sale was granted by this Court on September 

11, 2007, and 

WHEREAS, Judgment by this Court was in the amount of $25,000.00 plus 

interests and costs. The amount realized at the U.S. Marshal’s sale is insufficient to cover 

the plaintiff’s judgment. There were no other claims timely filed in this action. 

WHEREAS, as reflected by the U.S. Marshal’s return, the fees of the U.S. 

Marshal have been satisfied from the proceeds of the sale, and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the agreement for judgment of the parties, Plaintiff is 

entitled to the funds obtained from the U.S. Marshal’s sale of the in rem defendant S/V 

NIOBE, under the terms of the Assented To Motion for Sale of Vessel and Order for Sale 

of Vessel of this Court dated July 25, 2007: 

ORDERED, that the proceeds of the sale of the defendant vessel remaining in the 

Registry of the Court be distributed to the plaintiff in partial satisfaction of its judgment. 

Dated at Concord, New Hampshire, this ____ day of September 2007. 

 

 ____________________________ 

 United States District Judge 

9th /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

October, 2007. 

Case 1:06-cv-00254-JD Document 42 Filed 10/09/07 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7693

CHRISTOPHER FRANK,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

TERRY O'BRIEN, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (2:11-cv-00045-JPB-DJJ)

Submitted: May 24, 2012 Decided: May 30, 2012

Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Frank, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Frank, a federal prisoner, appeals the 

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 

(West 2006 & Supp. 2011) petition. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Frank v. O’Brien, No. 

2:11-cv-00045-JPB-DJJ (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 7, 2011). 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.

AFFIRMED
Case 1:05-cv-00178-JD Document 114 Filed 10/19/06 Page 1 of 3Case 1:05-cv-00178-JD Document 114 Filed 10/19/06 Page 2 of 3Case 1:05-cv-00178-JD Document 114 Filed 10/19/06 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1253 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1253

  To amend the Shipping Act of 1984 to restore the application of the 
  antitrust laws to certain agreements and conduct to which such Act 
                                applies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2001

     Mr. Sensenbrenner (for himself, Mr. Hyde, and Mr. Hutchinson) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
 the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and 
   Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Shipping Act of 1984 to restore the application of the 
  antitrust laws to certain agreements and conduct to which such Act 
                                applies.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Free Market Antitrust Immunity 
Reform (FAIR) Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 7(a) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 1706(a)) 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) by inserting ``entered into only among marine 
                terminal operators with respect to an activity 
                described in section 4(b)'' after ``agreement'',
                    (B) by striking ``section 5(d) or'', and
                    (C) by adding ``and'' at the end,
            (2) in paragraph (2)--
                    (A) by striking ``or agreement'' and inserting ``, 
                assessment agreement, or agreement of the kind 
                described in paragraph (1) that is'', and
                    (B) by striking the semicolon at the end and 
                inserting a period, and
            (3) by striking paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6).

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act 
and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 1 year after the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by this Act 
shall not apply with respect to conduct occurring before the effective 
date of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: M.A., A MINOR

PETITION OF: T.A., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 308 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.A., A MINOR

PETITION OF: T.A., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 309 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 29th day of November, 2023

, the Petitions for Allowance of Appeal

are DENIED

.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 04-cr-224-PB

Henry Ramon Cabrera

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the October 4, 2005

trial in the above case as a plea hearing has been scheduled in

the matter for October 27, 2005. The government does not object

to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from October 4, 2005 to December 6, 2005. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

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

Case 1:04-cr-00224-PB Document 18 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 2
2

The September 19, 2005 final pretrial conference is

cancelled. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

August 16, 2005

cc: Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Alfred Rubega, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:04-cr-00224-PB Document 18 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Darren Starr

v. Civil No. 05-cv-368-JD

Dennis Cox, et al.

O R D E R

As allowed on preliminary review, Darren Starr brings claims

against prison personnel alleging violations of the First

Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized

Persons Act ("RLUIPA"). At present, this case is scheduled for

trial to begin on September 18, 2007. The defendants have filed

a motion for summary judgment that addresses only the plaintiff's

claim under the RLUIPA, although it acknowledges his claims under

the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Starr has filed a motion to

compel discovery, arguing that his ability to respond to the

motion for summary judgment is impaired by a lack of adequate

responses to his discovery requests.

The motion for summary judgment cannot be addressed if a

bona fide discovery dispute exists. In addition, the defendants

appear to have overlooked two of Starr's three claims in their

motion for summary judgment in which they seek a judgment that

might resolve the case. 

Case 1:05-cv-00368-JD Document 71 Filed 07/26/07 Page 1 of 2
2

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendants' motion for

summary judgment (document no. 63) is terminated without

prejudice to file a new motion after the discovery dispute is

resolved. The plaintiff's motion to compel discovery (document

no. 70) is referred to the magistrate judge. Because the motion

for summary judgment is terminated and further proceedings are

required in this case, the orders denying the plaintiff's motion

for an extension of time (document no. 66) and to continue trial

(document no. 67) are vacated, and the motions are terminated as

moot. 

If appropriate, the defendants shall file a renewed motion

for summary judgment, addressing all three of the plaintiff's

claims, within thirty days following resolution of the discovery

dispute. The plaintiff will have the time allowed in the local

rules to respond. Any motion for summary judgment that addresses

fewer than all of the claims is a motion for partial summary

judgment and should be so titled if that is the relief that is

sought. 

The trial date for this case will be rescheduled to a date

no earlier than January of 2008.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

July 26, 2007

cc: Mary E. Maloney, Esquire

Darren Starr, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00368-JD Document 71 Filed 07/26/07 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

ALEXANDER W. HARLAN, 

Defendant. 

8:23CR125 

ORDER 

 

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Deadline 

for Filing Pretrial Motions, (Filing No. 17). For good cause shown, the Court finds the motion 

should be granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1) Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Deadline for Filing Pretrial Motions, 

(Filing No. 17), is granted. 

2) Pretrial motions shall be filed by October 23, 2023. 

3) In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the Court finds that the ends of 

justice will be served by granting this motion and outweigh the interests of the 

public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising as a result 

of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between today’s date and October 

23, 2023, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the 

requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant this motion would deny 

counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account 

the exercise of due diligence, and the novelty and complexity of the case. The 

failure to grant this motion might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 

3161(h)(7)(A) & (B). 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 8th day of September, 2023. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Susan M. Bazis 

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00125-RFR-SMB Doc # 18 Filed: 09/08/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 32