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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sharon Few,

Plaintiff

v. Civil No. 07-cv-427-SM

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, et al.,

Defendants.

O R D E R

Re: (Document No. 46)

Plaintiff’s Request for Oral Arguments Under LR 7.1(d)

Ruling: Denied. While the court ordinarily will routinely

grant requests for oral argument when requested by any party, a

review of the motion and relevant pleadings discloses that

plaintiff’s primary concern relates to the validity of the Stalk

affidavit. Oral argument on that and related points is simply

not required and would not be helpful. The Stalk affidavit was

properly filed and plaintiff raises no legitimate question

regarding its authenticity.

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

October 11, 2007

cc: Sharon Few, pro se

Guy P. Tully, Esq.

Jeffrey S. Brody, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 49 Filed 10/11/07 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 183 (Friday, September 19, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54401-54402]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21921]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION


Federal Management Regulation; Motor Vehicle Management; Notice 
of GSA Bulletin FMR B-19

AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services 
Administration (GSA).

ACTION: Notice of a bulletin.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces GSA Federal Management Regulation (FMR) 
Bulletin B-19. This bulletin provides guidance to Federal agencies on 
increasing fuel efficiency for the Federal motor vehicle fleets. GSA 
Bulletin FMR B-19 may be found at www.gsa.gov/fmrbulletin.

DATES: The bulletin announced in this notice became effective on August 
29, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Janet Dobbs, Office of Governmentwide 
Policy (M), Office of Travel, Transportation, and Asset Management 
(MT), General Services Administration at (202) 208-6601 or via e-mail 
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#94fef5faf1e0baf0fbf6f6e7d4f3e7f5baf3fbe2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2b414a454e5f054f444949586b4c584a054c445d">[email protected]</span></a>. Please cite FMR Bulletin B-19.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    Federal agencies are required to obtain fuel efficient vehicles in 
accordance with Subpart A of Federal Management Regulation (FMR) part 
102-34, Motor Vehicle Management. The Energy Policy Act requires 
agencies to acquire alternative fuel vehicles, and Executive Order 
13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation 
Management, requires agencies to decrease petroleum consumption and 
increase alternative fuel use. Also, the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 set forth efforts to enhance energy conservation 
and efficiency. Increasing fuel efficiency will help agencies save on 
fuel costs while also helping them to meet environmental mandates.
    This notice announces GSA Bulletin FMR B-19 that provides guidance 
on

[[Page 54402]]

increasing fuel efficiency for the Federal motor vehicle fleets.

B. Procedures

    Bulletins regarding motor vehicle management are located on the 
Internet at www.gsa.gov/fmrbulletin as Federal Management Regulation 
(FMR) bulletins.

    Dated: August 29, 2008.
Becky Rhodes,
Deputy Associate Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-21921 Filed 9-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-14-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-mj-082-01-JM

Joan DiBartolo

O R D E R

Defendant appeared for a bail revocation hearing pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3148. She does not contest her violations. 

Unfortunately, she has been unable to stay off marijuana and

cocaine. Only after arrest on bail violations does she now say

she needs treatment. She is not now a good candidate for

treatment and is unlikely to comply with conditions. I find that

the defendant is unlikely to abide by any condition or

combination of conditions. Her bail is revoked.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained

pending trial. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney

General or his 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 shall be afforded a reasonable

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On

Case 1:06-mj-00082-JM Document 10 Filed 09/12/06 Page 1 of 2
2

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 shall deliver the defendant to the United

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

___________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: September 12, 2006 

cc: Jonathan R. Saxe, Esq.

 Terry L. Ollila, Esq.

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-mj-00082-JM Document 10 Filed 09/12/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:05-cv-00185-PB Document 23 Filed 08/11/05 Page 1 of 1
II

Calendar No. 457

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1384

[Report No. 107–184]

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 3, 2001

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

JUNE 27, 2002

Reported by Mr. BINGAMAN, without amendment

AN ACT

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the

route in Arizona and New Mexico which the Navajo

and Mescalero Apache Indian tribes were forced to walk

in 1863 and 1864, for study for potential addition to

the National Trails System.

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 ‘‘Long Walk National

5 Historic Trail Study Act’’.
2

HR 1384 RS

1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

2 Congress finds the following:

3 (1) Beginning in the fall of 1863 and ending in

4 the winter of 1864, the United States Government

5 forced thousands of Navajos and Mescalero Apaches

6 to relocate from their ancestral lands to Fort Sum7 ner, New Mexico, where the tribal members were

8 held captive, virtually as prisoners of war, for over

9 4 years.

10 (2) Thousands of Native Americans died at

11 Fort Sumner from starvation, malnutrition, disease,

12 exposure, or conflicts between the tribes and United

13 States military personnel.

14 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION FOR STUDY.

15 Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16

16 U.S.C. 1244(c)) is amended by adding at the end the fol17 lowing new paragraph:

18 ‘‘(ll) The Long Walk Trail, a series of routes

19 which the Navajo and Mescalero Apache Indian tribes

20 were forced to walk beginning in the fall of 1863 as a

21 result of their removal by the United States Government

22 from their ancestral lands, generally located within a cor23 ridor extending through portions of Canyon de Chelley,
3

HR 1384 RS

1 Arizona, and Albuquerque, Canyon Blanco, Anton Chico,

2 Canyon Piedra Pintado, and Fort Sumner, New Mexico.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 2,

2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
Calendar No. 457

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1384

[Report No. 107–184]

AN ACT

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the route in Arizona and New Mexico

which the Navajo and Mescalero Apache Indiantribes were forced to walk in 1863 and 1864, forstudy for potential addition to the NationalTrails System.

JUNE 27, 20002

Reported without amendment
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 184 (Monday, September 22, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22023]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11418 and <greek-i>11419]


Louisiana Disaster Number LA-00019

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 3.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-1786-DR), dated 09/02/
2008.
    Incident: Hurricane Gustav.
    Incident Period: 09/01/2008 and continuing.
    Effective Date: 09/11/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/03/2008.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/02/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Presidential disaster 
declaration for the State of Louisiana, dated 09/02/2008 is hereby 
amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the 
disaster:

Primary Parishes: (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): 
Calcasieu.

    All other parishes contiguous to the above named primary parish 
have previously been declared.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-22023 Filed 9-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-215-01-PB

Larry Stallings, et al.

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the May 1, 2007 trial in

the above case in order to allow additional time for an

evaluation of his competency to be completed prior to trial. The

Government and co-defendants do not object to a continuance of

the trial period. 

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from May 1, 2007 to June 5, 2007. 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 defendants in a speedy trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00215-PB Document 101 Filed 04/30/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

April 30, 2007

cc: Donald Feith, AUSA

R.P. Cornelius, Esq.

William T. Cornelius, Esq.

William Christie, Esq.

Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Paul Pappas, Esq.

Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Michael Smith, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00215-PB Document 101 Filed 04/30/07 Page 2 of 2
<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>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                           6,608
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,674
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    426,455
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               478,119
<PP&E>                                         345,090
<DEPRECIATION>                                 104,030
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 744,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          292,192
<BONDS>                                         14,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           398
<OTHER-SE>                                     400,225
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   744,591
<SALES>                                        666,631
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               666,631
<CGS>                                          398,647
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  247,970
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 560
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,454
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,452
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,002
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,002
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30




</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7700 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JERRY JEFFERSON SEXTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Samuel G. Wilson,

District Judge. (CR-97-9; CA-00-578-7)

Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 28, 2004

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Jefferson Sexton, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Jefferson Sexton, a federal prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motions

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Sexton has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Martha J. Lamothe

v. Civil No. 06-cv-407-JD

Beede Electrical Instrument Co.

Group Insurance Benefits Plan, et al.

O R D E R

Martha J. Lamothe brings an action under 29 U.S.C. §

1132(a)(1)(B) (“ERISA”), seeking supplemental life insurance

benefits following the death of her husband. Lamothe moves to

modify the administrative record to add employee bulletins issued

by Beede Electrical Instrument Co. on September 19, 2002, and

September 25, 2003, and a copy of Fort Dearborn Life Insurance

Company’s Benefits Booklet. Lamothe represents that all parties

assent to adding the Benefits Booklet to the record but that Fort

Dearborn objects to adding the employee bulletins. Fort Dearborn

has filed an objection.

Fort Dearborn asserts in its objection that the Beede plan

grants it discretionary authority to make benefits

determinations. Based on that authority, Fort Dearborn asserts

that its decision in Lamothe’s case is entitled to deferential

review under the arbitrary and capricious standard. See, e.g.,

Bard v. Boston Shipping Ass’n, 471 F.3d 229, 235 (1st Cir. 2006). 

Case 1:06-cv-00407-JD Document 21 Filed 03/27/07 Page 1 of 3
2

When a plan administrator’s decision is entitled to deferential

review, “there is a strong presumption that . . . review of . . .

[that] decision should be limited to the evidentiary record

presented to the administrator.” Lopes v. Met. Life Ins. Co.,

332 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2003). 

Fort Dearborn states that the employee bulletins Lamothe

seeks to add to the record were not provided during the

administrative proceeding. Lamothe does not contend otherwise. 

The only reason Lamothe gives to support her motion to add the

bulletins to the administrative record is that “they demonstrate

the defendants’ methods of communicating and providing notice to

Beede employees of dates and procedures for enrollment in the

Plan.” Motion ¶ 5. She does not explain why that is relevant in

this case nor provide “some very good reason . . . to overcome

the strong presumption that the record on review is limited to

the record before the administrator.” Liston v. Unum Corp.

Officer Severance Plan, 330 F.3d 19, 23 (1st Cir. 2003). 

Therefore, the motion to add the employee bulletins is denied.

Case 1:06-cv-00407-JD Document 21 Filed 03/27/07 Page 2 of 3
3

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s partially

assented-to motion to modify the administrative record (document

no. 18) is denied to the extent it seeks to add employee

bulletins to the record and is otherwise granted.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

March 27, 2006

cc: Mary Ann Dempsey, Esquire

David P. Eby, Esquire

Samantha Dowd Elliott, Esquire

Deborah S. Freeman, Esquire

Gordon A. Rehnborg, Jr., Esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00407-JD Document 21 Filed 03/27/07 Page 3 of 3
#### COLLINS v. McLEMORE.

No. 5277.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 31, 1936.

On Application for Suspensive Appeal April 3, 1936.

Henry W. Bethard, Jr., of Coushatta, for petitioner.

S. M. Cagle, of Coushatta, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

In re P. C. McLemore applying for writs of certiorari and mandamus to the Tenth judicial district court, parish of Red River, La.

Writ refused. The ruling of the lower court is correct.

On Application for Suspensive Appeal.

PER CURIAM.

In this case, the lower court, after hearing, granted a preliminary injunction. The defendant asked for a suspensive appeal which, in the discretion of the lower court, was refused. He is now applying to this court, under Act No. 29 of 1924, praying that we grant a suspensive appeal.

We are of the opinion that the lower court did not abuse the discretion vested in it in refusing the suspensive appeal; therefore defendant’s application is refused.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1244

To name the national aviation center operated by the United States Customs

Service as the ‘‘Glenn English Customs National Aviation Center’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 27, 2001

Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To name the national aviation center operated by the United

States Customs Service as the ‘‘Glenn English Customs

National Aviation Center’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. NAMING OF NATIONAL AVIATION CENTER.

4 The national aviation center operated by the United

5 States Customs Service and located at 5020 South Merid6 ian Avenue in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, shall be known

7 by each department, agency, and instrumentality of the

8 United States as the ‘‘Glenn English Customs National

9 Aviation Center’’.
2

•HR 1244 IH

1 SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, regulation, document, paper,

3 map, or other record of the United States to the aviation

4 center referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a

5 reference to the ‘‘Glenn English Customs National Avia6 tion Center’’.

Æ
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 16

- 00158

- CV

ALVIE ROBINSON

, Appellant

v.

ALICIA SCOTT AND BRA NDEN MULLENS

, Appellee s

From the 278th District Court

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 25,737

ORDER

Alvie Robinson appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his civil appeal. After filing

a timely motion for new trial, Robinson’s notice of appeal was due May 10, 2016. It was

not filed until May 18, 2016.

Robinson now requests an extension of time to fil e his notice of appeal. Rule 26.3

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that we may extend the time to file a

notice of appeal if, within 15 days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal, the

appellant files in the trial court a not ice of appeal and files in the appellate court a motionRobinson v. Scott Page 2

complying with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b). T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26.3. Within

15 days from May 10, Robinson filed both a notice of appeal in the trial court and a motion

for extension of ti me which complied with Rule 10.5(b) in this Court.

Accordingly, Robinson’s motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal is

granted in part. 1 The Notice of Appeal filed on May 18, 2016 is timely as of that date.

TOM GRAY

Chief J ustice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted

Order issued and filed June 2, 2016

1 Robinson requests a 15 day extension which is not necessary.