alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Benjamin E. MAY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 8421.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 8, 1938.

Bertram S. Boley, Herbert J. Haas, and Joseph F. Haas, all of Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.

James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., and Ralph E. Smith, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on to be heard upon the joint stipulation of counsel that the above numbered and entitled cause be remanded to the United States Board of Tax Appeals, and was submitted to the Court; on consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that this cause be, and it is hereby, remanded to the United States Board of Tax Appeals, with the instructions that it enter its order that the transferee liability of the petitioner has been settled and satisfied.

It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the mandate of this court issue without delay.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Troy Zwicker

v. Civil No. 05-cv-233-JD

Warden, New Hampshire State Prison

O R D E R

Pro se petitioner Troy Zwicker has filed a petition for a

writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he

challenges the constitutionality of his state court conviction

and confinement. The petition is before me for preliminary

review. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings

(“Habeas Rules”) (requiring initial review to determine whether

petition is facially valid and may be served); see also United

States District Court for the District of New Hampshire Local

Rules 4.3(d) (authorizing the magistrate judge to preliminarily

review pro se pleadings).

For the reasons stated in the report and recommendation

issued simultaneously herewith, I recommend that the petition be

served on the respondent but only as to three claims (Grounds

Two, Three and Six). I have recommended dismissal of the

Case 1:05-cv-00233-JD Document 6 Filed 08/04/05 Page 1 of 3
2

remaining claims (Grounds One, Four and Five). 

Accordingly, the petition shall be served upon the Warden of

the New Hampshire State Prison, who shall file an answer or other

pleading in response to the allegations made therein. See id.

(requiring reviewing judge to order a response to the petition). 

Service shall be completed by mailing to the New Hampshire Office

of the Attorney General, which is the prison’s attorney, by

certified mail, return receipt requested, copies of this order,

the report and recommendation and the habeas corpus petition and

supporting document (document no. 1). Respondent shall answer or

otherwise plead within thirty (30) days of the date of this

order. The answer shall comply with the requirements of Section

2254 Rule 5 (setting forth contents of the answer).

Upon receipt of the response, the court will determine

whether a hearing is warranted. See Section 2254 Rule 8

(providing circumstances under which a hearing is appropriate). 

Petitioner is referred to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, which requires

that every pleading, written motion, notice, and similar paper,

after the petition, shall be served on all parties. Such service

Case 1:05-cv-00233-JD Document 6 Filed 08/04/05 Page 2 of 3
3

is to be made by mailing the material to the parties’ attorneys.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: August 4, 2005

cc: Troy Zwicker, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00233-JD Document 6 Filed 08/04/05 Page 3 of 3
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1288

To amend title 49, United States Code, relating to the airport noise and

access review program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 29, 2001

Mrs. KELLY (for herself, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. SHAYS, Mrs. LOWEY, and Mr.

ENGEL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To amend title 49, United States Code, relating to the

airport noise and access review program.

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

3 That section 47524(d) of title 49, United States Code, is

4 amended—

5 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph

6 (5)(B);

7 (2) by striking the period at the end of para8 graph (6) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

9 (3) by inserting at the end the following:
2

•HR 1288 IH

1 ‘‘(7) a local restriction limiting the hours of op2 eration of an airport adopted by the airport operator

3 but disallowed by a court before 1985 if—

4 ‘‘(A) the airport operator adopted before

5 1985 a policy of encouraging voluntary limita6 tion of the hours of operation; and

7 ‘‘(B) the airport operator entered into an

8 agreement before 1985 with scheduled air car9 riers regulating the capacity of the airport ter10 minal.’’.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21667]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1773-DR]


Missouri; Amendment No. 10 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Missouri (FEMA-1773-DR), dated June 25, 2008, and related 
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 3, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident 
period for this declared disaster is now June 1 2008, through and 
including August 13, 2008.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs, 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-21667 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
Exhibit 4

  

   

  

  
    British American Tobacco p.l.c.

    

    

    Notification and public disclosure of transactions by persons discharging managerial 

    responsibilities and persons closely associated with them

    

    

    	
            1

          	
            Details of the person discharging managerial responsibilities/person closely associated

          
	
            a)

          	
            Name

          	
            Savio Kwan

          
	
            2

          	
            Reason for the notification

          
	
            a)

          	
            Position/status

          	
            Non-Executive Director

          
	
            b)

          	
            Initial notification/Amendment

          	
            Initial notification

          
	
            3

          	
            Details of the issuer, emission allowance market participant, auction platform, auctioneer or auction monitor

          
	
            a)

          	
            Name

          	
            British American Tobacco p.l.c.

          
	
            b)

          	
            LEI

          	
            213800FKA5MF17RJKT63

          
	
            4

          	
            Details of the transaction(s): section to be repeated for (i) each type of instrument; (ii) each type of transaction; (iii) each date; and
              (iv) each place where transactions have been conducted

          
	
            a)

          	
            Description of the financial instrument, type of instrument

             

            Identification code

          	
            Ordinary shares of 25p each

                 

            GB0002875804

          
	
            b)

          	
            Nature of the transaction

          	
            Acquisition of shares as a result of the reinvestment of dividend income.

          
	
            c)

          	
            Price(s) and volume(s)

          	 	 	 	 
	 	
            Price(s)

          	
            Volume(s)

          	 
	 	
            £31.075346

          	
            111

          	 
	 	 	 	 
	
            d)

          	
            Aggregated information

             

            - Aggregated volume

             

            - Price

          	
             

             

            111

             

            £31.075346

          
	
            e)

          	
            Date of the transaction

          	
            2019-08-15

          
	
            f)

          	
            Place of the transaction

          	
            London Stock Exchange (XLON)

          


    

    

    
      
        	
                Name of officer of issuer responsible for making notification: Bridget Creegan
                   

                  

                  Date of notification: 16 August 2019
SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT OF
 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP
 
 I, Kee Chan Sin, certify that:
 
 (a) A review of Cellco Partnership’s activities and of its
        performance under the Transfer and Servicing Agreement, dated as of October 10, 2018 (the “Transfer and Servicing Agreement”), among Verizon ABS LLC, as depositor, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, as servicer (in such capacity, the
        “Servicer”), marketing agent and custodian, and Verizon Owner Trust 2018-A, as issuer, during the period from October 10, 2018 to December 31, 2018 has been made under my supervision.
 
 (b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the
        Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Transfer and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the period from October 10, 2018 to December 31, 2018.
 
 March 28, 2019
 
 By:   /s/ Kee Chan Sin
 Kee Chan Sin
 Vice President and Assistant Treasurer
 Cellco Partnership, as Servicer of Verizon Owner Trust 2018-A
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### September 17, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 136357 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices



### v SC: 136357 COA: 276990 Oakland CC: 2005-202100-FH BRIAN KELLY WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 3, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY


### , J., would grant leave to appeal.

p0910 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 17, 2008

Clerk
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 4152

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. TAYLOR LASHAE STALLINGS, a/k/a Taylor Leshae Stallings , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Lynchburg

. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. ( 6:17

- cr - 00008

- NKM

- 2 )

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

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

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Juval O

. Scott, Federal Public Defender , Lisa M. Lorish, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER , Charlottesville , Virginia, for Appellant. Daniel P. Bubar, Acting United States Attorney, Kari K. Munro, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this cir cuit.2 PER CURIAM: Taylor Lashae Stallings entered a conditional guilty plea to Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (a) , and using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1) (A)

. S he was sentence d to a total term of 72 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Stallings ’ sole argument is that Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a proper predicate for the § 924(c) charge under § 924(c)(3)’s “force clause” because Hobbs Act robbery is not categorically a crime of violence. However, as Stallings concedes in her brief, th is argument is foreclosed by binding precedent. S ee United States
v. Mathis , 932 F.3d 242, 266 (4th Cir. 2019) (holding that Hobbs Act robbery categorically qualifies as “crime of violence” under “force clause” of § 924(c)(3)). Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument because t he facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid th e decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Amendment No.1 to Settlement Agreement with Broadcom Corporation



 EXHIBIT 10.30 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 This amendment (“Amendment No. 1”) is made and entered into as of August 13, 2004 and amends that certain
Settlement Agreement dated June 13, 2004 (“Settlement Agreement”) by and between, on the one hand, Microtune, Inc., a Delaware corporation, having offices at 2201 10th Street, Plano, TX 75074 together with its wholly owned subsidiary Microtune (Texas), L.P., a Texas limited partnership, having offices at 2201 10th Street, Plano, TX 75074 (“Microtune-LP”) (collectively, “Microtune”), and Broadcom Corporation, a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of California, having offices at 16215 Alton Parkway, Irvine, California 92619 together with its wholly owned subsidiary Broadcom International Limited, a Cayman Islands Corporation, with a place of
business at Zephyr House, Mary Street, P.O. Box 709 GT, Georgetown, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, British West Indies (“Broadcom International”) (collectively, “Broadcom”) (Microtune and Broadcom are individually
referred to herein as a “Party,” and collectively as the “Parties”). 
  
 WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement states that royalties received by Microtune under certain Immunity Agreements prior to April 30, 2004 (“Immunity
Agreement Termination Date”) may be retained by Microtune; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Settlement Agreement to change the Immunity Agreement Termination Date to April 15, 2004 for consistency with the date that royalties commence under that certain Patent License Agreement between the
Parties dated June 13, 2004. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the foregoing and the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 
  
 1.    Section 4.2 of the Settlement Agreement is hereby amended by replacing each occurrence of “April 30, 2004” in Section
4.2 with “April 15, 2004”. 
  
 2.    Section 4.3 of the Settlement Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the occurrence of “April 30, 2004” in the second sentence of Section 4.3 with “April 15, 2004”. 
  
 Except as expressly amended above, the Settlement Agreement is hereby
reaffirmed by the parties and shall continue in full force and effect. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to be signed below by their
respective duly authorized officers. 
  

									
	 Microtune, Inc.
	 	 	 	 Broadcom Corporation

					
	By:	 	 /s/  James A. Fontaine
	 	 	 	By:	 	 /s/  Daniel A. Marotta

					
	 Name:
	 	 James A. Fontaine
	 	 	 	 Name:
	 	 Daniel A. Marotta

					
	 Title:
	 	 CEO
	 	 	 	 Title:
	 	 GVP/GM

			
	 Microtune (Texas), L.P.
	 	 	 	 Broadcom International Limited

					
	By:	 	 /s/  James A. Fontaine
	 	 	 	By:	 	 /s/  Daniel A. Marotta

					
	 Name:
	 	 James A. Fontaine
	 	 	 	 Name:
	 	 Daniel A. Marotta

					
	 Title:
	 	 CEO
	 	 	 	 Title:
	 	 GVP/GM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-50-01-PB

Sheri Guerriero

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

July 6, 2006 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to engage in plea negotiations. The government

does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

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

court will continue the trial from July 6, 2006 to September 6,

2006. In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds

pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated

reasons, the ends of justice served in granting a continuance

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

speedy trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00063-PB Document 10 Filed 06/21/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The June 21, 2006 final pretrial conference is continued 

until August 28, 2006 at 3:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

June 21, 2006

cc: Sandra Bloomenthal, Esq.

Donald Feith, AUSA 

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00063-PB Document 10 Filed 06/21/06 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

JACARA THOMPSON,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

TODD SCHMADERER, in his 

individual and official capacities, et 

al.,

Defendants.

8:23-CV-245

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's motion to appoint 

counsel (filing 24). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court "may request 

an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." Crozier for A.C. 

v. Westside Cmty. Sch. Dist., 973 F.3d 882, 889 (8th Cir. 2020). The Court must 

consider the factual and legal complexity of the issues, the existence of 

conflicting testimony, and the ability of the plaintiff to investigate the facts 

and present her claims. Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2018). 

The Court finds that the criteria for appointment of counsel are satisfied

in this case. The plaintiff is unable to afford counsel. See filing 2. The issues 

are factually and legally complex, and it may be difficult for all parties to 

complete discovery without the assistance of plaintiff's counsel.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (filing 24) 

is granted.

2. Pursuant to NECivR 1.7, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), and the 

inherent authority of the Court, John L. Spray and the 

Mattson Ricketts Law Firm are appointed to represent the 

plaintiff.

8:23-cv-00245-JMG-JMD Doc # 26 Filed: 08/09/24 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 149
- 2 -

3. The Clerk of the Court shall provide a copy of this order and 

a copy of filing 23 to the above-named counsel:

John L. Spray

2077 N Street

Suite 320

Lincoln, NE 68502

jls@mattsonricketts.com

4. Counsel shall promptly enter an appearance accepting the 

Court's appointment.

5. Expenses and attorney fees shall be paid from the Federal 

Practice Fund under the restrictions set out in NECivR 1.7

and the Amended Plan for the Administration of the Federal 

Practice Fund and the Federal Practice Committee (as 

adopted December 29, 2021). Counsel is particularly 

directed to Section II(A)(1)(a), Section VI(A)(1), and 

Attachment A of the Plan, which explain what fees and 

expenses are authorized and how to seek reimbursement.

6. On or before August 26, 2024, counsel for the parties shall 

contact the Magistrate Judge's chambers to set a scheduling

conference to discuss case progression. 

Dated this 9th day of August, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

John M. Gerrard

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00245-JMG-JMD Doc # 26 Filed: 08/09/24 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 150
#### Commonwealth *v.*Spadine, Appellant.

Argued December 15, 1937.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker, James and Rhodes, JJ.

*Davis R. Hobbs,*with him *Robert E. Farr,*for appellant.

*R. W. Trembafh,*with him *Joseph, F. Ogden,*District Attorney, for appellee.

January 27, 1938:

Opinion by

Stadteeld, J.,

This is an appeal by defendant, Louis Spadine, from an order of the Court of Quarter Sessions of Wyoming County for the support of his wife and infant child, *78three months old, directing the payment of $32 per month.

According to the testimony, Lulu Spadine, the prosecutrix, and Louis Spadine, the defendant, were married in January, 1937. The prosecutrix was then sixteen years of age. After marriage, the parties lived in defendant’s home where defendant’s mother, father and hired man also lived. Except for a bedroom, no separate quarters or rooms were provided by defendant for himself and wife. According to the testimony there were no carpets on the floor and no bedding other than bags of straw. During the time she lived there, she was pregnant. Defendant failed to protect hisi wife from the taunts and epithets of the hired man who lived in the house and refused to discharge him. The prosecutrix in protest twice withdrew and twice came back in an attempt to correct living conditions, and, after five weeks, withdrew from defendant’s home but did not give up attempt at reconciliation until after the birth of the child when prosecutrix went to defendant’s home and defendant refused to speak to her or to take or look at the child.

Defendant is a farmer by occupation and operates a dairy. The wife testified that the defendant had an income of $280 to $600 per month. She had no knowledge as to the expenses of operating the business. It may therefore be assumed that her testimony related to the gross income of her husband. The defendant testified that his highest gross income per month was $400 or $4,800 per year, and his operating expenses $4,160, leaving a net income of $640 per year.

The court below which saw and heard the parties and was therefore best able to judge of their credibility, after hearing the testimony, ordered the defendant to pay the sum of $32 per month.

As stated by Judge Trexler in *Commonwealth ex rel. v. Betts,*76 Pa. Superior Ct. 96: “......the law has *79placed on the lower court the duty of deciding what sum is ‘reasonable and proper’ for the comfortable support and maintenance of a wife and child, and to determine whether defendant is of sufficient ability to pay such sum. Unless there is a clear abuse of discretion, it is not for us to substitute our judgment for his.” Consideration of the entire record under the Act of April 18, 1919, P. L. 72, does not require us to reverse a conclusion that has evidence to sustain it: *Commonwealth ex rel. v.*May, 77 Pa. Superior Ct. 40; see also *Commonwealth v. Heck*113 Pa. Superior Ct. 595, 173 A. 449. After an examination of the entire record, we cannot say that there was such an abuse of discretion as would warrant a reversal of the order.

Order affirmed.