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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mangosoft, Inc., and

Mangosoft Corporation

v. Civil No. 02-cv-545-SM

Oracle Corporation,

O R D E R

Re: (Document No. 93) Motion to Request Rulings on

the Parties’ Cross Motions for Summary Judgment

Granted, to the extent the court of course will rule on all

pending motions. Counsel will be among the first to know when

rulings have been made. In the meantime, perhaps other matters

might constructively occupy counsel’s time, as they do the

court’s. To the extent the purpose of the motion is merely to

inform the court that Oracle is not inclined to mediate at this

point, it was unnecessary; Oracle’s mediation stance has nothing

at all to do with the pending motions, including when they will

be resolved.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

January 11, 2006

cc: Alexander J. Walker, Esq.

Paul J. Hayes, Esq.

Danielle L. Pacik, Esq.

Leeron G. Kalay, Esq.

Martha Van Oot, Esq.

Matthew D. Powers, Esq.

Matthew M. Sarboraria, Esq.

Paul T. Ehrlich, Esq.

Case 1:02-cv-00545-SM Document 94 Filed 01/11/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Appendix A to Item 601(c) of Regulation S-K
Commercial and Industrial Companies
Article 5 of Regulation S-X
(in thousands, except per share data)
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                          15,719
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,737
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    225,716
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               267,346
<PP&E>                                         197,096
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,325
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 444,644
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          164,359
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           193
<OTHER-SE>                                     262,564
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   444,644
<SALES>                                        590,873
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               590,873
<CGS>                                          360,792
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  213,808
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 972
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,301
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,429
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,872
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,872
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.45
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, Barry D. Elkins, hereby certify that
the Quarterly Report of Direct General Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2005(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that
the information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Direct General
Corporation.

      May 10, 2005      By: /s/ Barry D. Elkins
               Date         ----------------------------------------------------
                                             (Signature)
                        Name: Barry D. Elkins
                        Title: Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-77-01-SM

Johnell Bennett

O R D E R

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

trial is granted (document 15). No further continuances absent extraordinary

circumstances. Trial has been rescheduled for the June 2007 trial period. 

Defendant Bennett shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than 

March 6, 2007. 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: May 22, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. 

Jury Selection: June 5, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00077-SM Document 16 Filed 02/23/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

February 23, 2007

cc: Charles A. Bookman, Esq.

Mark Zuckerman, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00077-SM Document 16 Filed 02/23/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Robert Breest,

Petitioner

v. Civil No. 77-cv-45-SM

NH State Prison Warden,

Respondent

O R D E R

Defendant seeks to challenge his state conviction for first

degree murder, a conviction that is now over thirty-three years

old. He has filed a pleading styled as a “Motion for Relief from

Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4);

The Judgment is Void.” In that pleading he raises legal issues

raised in an earlier petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, although he now adds a contemporary twist -

he says the state sentencing judge’s finding that his crime

qualified, under state law, as a psycho-sexual murder, violated

his right to a jury trial on that issue. See Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

Ordinarily, a Rule 60(b) motion challenging the

constitutionality of the petitioner’s underlying conviction

should be treated as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Rodwell v. Pepe, 324 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2003). Here, the motion

Case 1:77-cv-00045-SM Document 22 Filed 05/30/2006 Page 1 of 3

Breest v. NH State Prison, Warden Doc. 22

Dockets.Justia.com
2

must also be construed as a second or successive petition, since

he previously filed a federal habeas petition challenging this

same conviction, on similar grounds. As such, petitioner must

first “move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order

authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); United States v. Barrett, 178 F.3d 34

(1st Cir. 1999).

Although the petition could be transferred to the United

States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for its

consideration, 28 U.S.C. § 1631, transfer is not mandated. 

Because petitioner has raised identical issues previously, and

the Court of Appeals has already resolved them, and because the

Court of Appeals has also held that Apprendi does not apply

retroactively, thus precluding the new ground raised by

petitioner, the motion will be denied and petitioner can decide

whether or not to seek the required authorization from the Court

of Appeals to pursue a second or successive petition challenging

this conviction.

The motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) (document no. 17) is construed as a

Case 1:77-cv-00045-SM Document 22 Filed 05/30/2006 Page 2 of 3
3

second or successive petition for habeas corpus relief (28 U.S.C.

§ 2254), is hereby denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

May 30, 2006

cc: Robert Breest, pro se

Neals-Erik W. Delker, Esq.

Case 1:77-cv-00045-SM Document 22 Filed 05/30/2006 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
ACCOMPANYING  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          17,560
<SECURITIES>                                    55,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,917
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                94,011
<PP&E>                                         120,386
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,667
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 339,451
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,542
<BONDS>                                         92,406
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           116
<OTHER-SE>                                     106,597
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   339,451
<SALES>                                         48,188
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,634
<CGS>                                           25,688
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,724
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,915
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,484
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (3,087)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,397
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,397
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.45




</TABLE>
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1028

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit the admission

to the United States of nonimmigrant students and visitors who are

the spouses and children of United States permanent resident aliens,

and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 14, 2001

Mr. PALLONE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit

the admission to the United States of nonimmigrant

students and visitors who are the spouses and children

of United States permanent resident aliens, 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,
2

•HR 1028 IH

1 SECTION 1. ADMISSION OF CERTAIN ‘‘B’’ AND ‘‘F’’ VISA NON2 IMMIGRANTS WHO ARE SPOUSES OR CHIL3 DREN OF UNITED STATES PERMANENT RESI4 DENT ALIENS.

5 Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act

6 (8 U.S.C. 1182) is amended—

7 (1) by redesignating the subsection (p) added

8 by section 1505(f) of Public Law 106–386 (114

9 Stat. 1526) as a subsection (s); and

10 (2) by adding at the end the following:

11 ‘‘(t)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,

12 no alien—

13 ‘‘(A) who is—

14 ‘‘(i) the spouse or child of an alien lawfully

15 admitted for permanent residence to the United

16 States; and

17 ‘‘(ii) not eligible to enter the United States

18 as an immigrant except by reason of being such

19 a spouse or child; and

20 ‘‘(B) who seeks admission to the United States

21 for purposes of visiting the permanent resident

22 spouse or parent or for studying in the United

23 States; and

24 ‘‘(C) who is otherwise qualified;

25 may be denied issuance of a visa, or may be denied admis26 sion to the United States, as a nonimmigrant alien de-
3

•HR 1028 IH

1 scribed in section 101(a)(15)(B) who is coming to the

2 United States temporarily for pleasure or as a non3 immigrant alien described in section 101(a)(15)(F).

4 ‘‘(2) Whenever an alien described in paragraph (1)

5 seeks admission to the United States as a nonimmigrant

6 alien described in section 101(a)(15)(B) who is coming

7 temporarily for pleasure or as a nonimmigrant alien de8 scribed in section 101(a)(15)(F), the fact that a petition

9 has been filed on the alien’s behalf for classification of

10 the alien as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi11 dence shall not constitute evidence of the alien’s intention

12 to abandon his or her foreign residence.’’.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22060]



[[Page 54882]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Public Notice for a Change in Use of Aeronautical Property at the 
Greenwood-Leflore Airport, Greenwood, MS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(c), 
notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the 
Greenwood-Leflore Airport to change the use of an area on the airport 
to non-aeronautical use.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 23, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in 
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Jackson Airports 
District Office, 100 West Cross Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208-
2307.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Mr. Bardin Redditt, Airport Manager at the 
following address: 502-A Airport Road, Greenwood, MS 38930.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Orr, Program Manager, Jackson 
Airports District Office, 100 West Cross Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 
39208-2307, (601) 664-9885. The request to change use may be reviewed 
in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Greenwood-Leflore Airport in Greenwood, 
Mississippi, is considering a proposal for the expansion of the lease 
area of a commercial tenant presently located on the airport. The lease 
area of this tenant will increase from 12.82 acres to 28.71 acres. The 
business operation of this aeronautical tenant necessarily includes a 
non-aeronautical component. Of this 28.71 acres proposed for lease, 
7.50 acres of paved apron and adjacent unpaved areas will be changed to 
non-aeronautical use. The Airport has already partially offset the loss 
of this pavement by the recent construction of a new general aviation 
(GA) apron. This proposal will require the displacement of one 
aeronautical user. The Airport has provided an offer to this 
aeronautical user for the purchase of his facilities. Additional ramp 
area and space for hangar construction is available on the new GA 
apron. The increased revenue generated by the proposed lease expansion 
will be used for operations and maintenance and capital improvements on 
the Airport.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office 
listed above under ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.'' In addition, 
any person may, upon request, inspect the request, notice and other 
documents germane to the request in person at the offices of the 
Greenwood-Leflore Airport, Greenwood, Mississippi.

    Issued in Jackson, Mississippi, on September 11, 2008.
Rans D. Black,
Manager, Jackson Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. E8-22060 Filed 9-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Case 1:06-cr-00088-JM Document 11 Filed 05/26/06 Page 1 of 1
AO 472 (Rev. 11/16), modified by NED (9/17) 

Page 1 of 2 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

v. Case No. 8:23cr115 

 

DANIELLE CLEARY, ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL

Defendant

Part I - Eligibility for Detention

 Upon the 

☒ Motion of the Government attorney pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1), 

the Court held a detention hearing and found that detention is warranted. 

 This order sets forth the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), in 

addition to any other findings made at the hearing. 

Part II - Findings of Fact and Law as to Presumptions under § 3142(e) 

 

Part III - Analysis and Statement of the Reasons for Detention

After considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) and the information presented at the detention hearing, 

the Court concludes that the defendant must be detained pending trial because the Government has proven:

☒ By clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure 

the safety of any other person and the community. 

☒ By a preponderance of evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the 

defendant’s appearance as required. 

In addition to any findings made on the record at the hearing, the reasons for detention include the following: 

☒ Weight of evidence against the defendant is strong 

☒ Subject to lengthy period of incarceration if convicted 

☒ Prior criminal history 

☒ Background information unknown or unverified 

☒ The nature and circumstances of the offense charged. 

☒ The current offense is a crime of violence. 

☒ The nature and seriousness of the danger posed by the defendant’s release. 

OTHER REASONS OR FURTHER EXPLANATION: 

The defendant had supervised visits wither her children. While the worker was there observing the visit, the defendant 

loaded her children into a car and fled with them due to the charges she was facing in this indictment.. The defendant was 

headed to another state to stay with a man she met on the internet. The defendant has been convicted for this in state 

court. 

Part IV - Directions Regarding Detention

8:23-cr-00115-BCB-SMB Doc # 34 Filed: 12/21/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 46
Page 2 of 2

 

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the Attorney General or to the Attorney General’s designated representative 

for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or 

being held in custody pending appeal. The defendant must be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation 

with defense counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, the person 

in charge of the corrections facility must deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance 

in connection with a court proceeding. 

Date: 12/21/2023 s/ Susan M. Bazis 

 United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00115-BCB-SMB Doc # 34 Filed: 12/21/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 47
|   |  • | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |  • | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership. |
|--------|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   Date: February 28, 2011 | /s/ MICHAEL E. MERCER                         |
|--------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                           | Michael E. Mercer                             |
|                           | Chief Financial Officer of EV Management LLC, |
|                           | general partner of EV Energy GP, L.P.,        |
|                           | general partner of EV Energy Partners, L.P.   |

----
IIB

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1499

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 31, 2001

Received

AUGUST 2, 2001

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

AN ACT

To amend the District of Columbia College Access Act of

1999 to permit individuals who graduated from a secondary school prior to 1998 and individuals who enroll

in an institution of higher education more than 3 years

after graduating from a secondary school to participate

in the tuition assistance programs under such Act, and

for other purposes.
2

HR 1499 RFS

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 ‘‘District of Columbia

5 College Access Act Technical Corrections Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. REVISIONS TO ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR

7 TUITION ASSISTANCE UNDER DISTRICT OF

8 COLUMBIA COLLEGE ACCESS ACT.

9 (a) PERMITTING CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS TO PARTICI10 PATE IN TUITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.—

11 (1) INDIVIDUALS GRADUATING FROM SEC12 ONDARY SCHOOL PRIOR TO 1998.—Section

13 3(c)(2)(B) of the District of Columbia College Ac14 cess Act of 1999 (Public Law 106–98; 113 Stat.

15 1325) is amended by striking ‘‘on or after January

16 1, 1998’’.

17 (2) INDIVIDUALS ENROLLING MORE THAN 3

18 YEARS AFTER GRADUATING FROM SECONDARY

19 SCHOOL.—Section 3(c)(2) of such Act (Public Law

20 106–98; 113 Stat. 1325) is amended by striking

21 subparagraph (C).

22 (b) PROHIBITING PARTICIPATION OF FOREIGN NA23 TIONALS.—Section 3(c)(2) of such Act (Public Law 106–

24 98; 113 Stat. 1325), as amended by subsection (a)(2), is
3

HR 1499 RFS

1 amended by inserting after subparagraph (B) the fol2 lowing:

3 ‘‘(C) meets the citizenship and immigra4 tion status requirements described in section

5 484(a)(5) of the Higher Education Act of 1965

6 (20 U.S.C. 1091(a)(5));’’.

7 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

8 The amendments made by this Act shall take effect

9 on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.