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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v.

Sothear Kim and Michael Ducharme

Cr. No. 05-cr-241-04 & 08-JD

O R D E R

The assented to motions to reschedule jury trial (document

nos. 178 and 179) filed by defendants are granted. Trial is

continued as to all defendants unless an objection is filed by

January 19, 2007.

Defendants shall file waivers of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendants in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for

the reasons set forth in the motions.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: January 17, 2007

cc: Counsel of Record

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:05-cr-00241-JD Document 181 Filed 01/17/07 Page 1 of 1
#### Kathleen LOCHRIE, a widow, and Robert B. Lochrie and Margaret M. Lochrie, his wife, petitioners, v. Minnie DICKEY and Walter C. Dickey, her husband, et al., respondents.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

Jan. 15, 1954.

Rehearing Denied March 4, 1954.

■ Buckley, Windle & Bland, Fort 'Lauder-dale; for petitioners.

Rogers, Morris & Griffis, Miller & Miller and John N. Tolar and Russell Mc-Caughan and Philip Dressier, Fort Lau-derdale, for-respondents. -

PER CURIAM.

The decree presented for review in the petition for certiorari herein, so far as it .relates to the matters presented for our consideration, is a final decree. It is cpn-clusively apparent from the record that as to the points presented here the judicial labor of the lower court was concluded. Under such circumstances, we have no power of review except on appeal duly prosecuted.

. Certiorari denied.

’■ ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL, MATHEWS and DREW, JJ., concur.
Exhibit






Exhibit 10(x)(vi)
AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE
TO THE
HARRIS CORPORATION SALARIED RETIREMENT PLAN


WHEREAS, Harris Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), heretofore has adopted and maintains the Harris Corporation Salaried Retirement Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2017 (the “Plan”);
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10.01 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Corporation or its delegate has the authority to amend the Plan;
WHEREAS, the Employee Benefits Committee of the Corporation (the “Committee”) has been delegated the authority to adopt non-material amendments to the Plan;
WHEREAS, the Corporation, Leopard Merger Sub Inc. and L3 Technologies, Inc. have entered into that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of October 12, 2018 (the “L3 Merger Agreement”) pursuant to which L3 Technologies, Inc. shall become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Corporation and the Corporation shall be renamed L3Harris Technologies, Inc.;
WHEREAS, the Committee desires to amend the Plan to prevent any suspension of Plan benefits that would occur as a result of the transactions contemplated by the L3 Merger Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Committee has determined that the above-described amendment is non-material.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan hereby is amended, effective as of the Closing Date (as defined in the L3 Merger Agreement), and contingent upon the occurrence of the Closing (as defined in the L3 Merger Agreement), as follows:
		
	1.
	Section 4.12(e) (No cessation of benefit payments for legacy Harris employees as of December 31, 2015) shall be replaced in its entirety to read as follows:


(e)    No cessation of benefit payments for certain legacy employees
Notwithstanding anything in this Plan to the contrary, if a former Member or a retired Member was (i) employed by Harris Corporation or its affiliates as of December 31, 2015 and receiving payment of a vested benefit or retirement allowance as of such date or (ii) employed by L3 Technologies, Inc. or its affiliates immediately prior to the effective time of the merger by which L3 Technologies, Inc. became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Harris Corporation and receiving payment of a vested benefit or retirement allowance as of such date, any benefit payments he is receiving shall continue.


APPROVED by the HARRIS CORPORATION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE on this 20th day of June, 2019.
/s/ James P. Girard        
James P. Girard, Chairperson


ACTIVE 244475075


1
#### Juanita WYCHE, as Independent Executrix of the Estate of C. D. Wyche, Deceased, Appellant, v. BANK OF TEXAS, Appellee.

No. 16020.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

Sept. 21, 1972.

Childress, Port & Crady, Kenneth J. Pe-den, Houston, Strasburger, Price, Kelton, Martin & Unis, Mike Joplin and H. Norman Kinzy, Dallas, for appellant.

Butler, Binion, Rice, Cook & Knapp, Pearson Grimes and Robert G. Taylor, II, Houston, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellee has filed a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. It appears that the appellant filed her motion for a new trial on March 17, 1972, prior to the *392rendition of the judgment on March 30, 1972. The appellant on April 10, 1972, filed another motion for new trial identical to the one filed on March 17, 1972. Appellant then filed what is entitled “Amended Motion for New Trial” on April 28, 1972, gave notice of appeal on June 22, 1972 and filed her appeal bond on July 12, 1972.

It is clear from Rule 306c, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure that the prematurely filed motion for new trial of March 17, 1972, is deemed to have been filed on the date of, but subsequent to, the rendition of the judgment on March 30, 1972. Magnolia Petroleum Company v. Klingeman, 242 S.W.2d 950 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1951, writ ref’d).

Whether the motion filed on April 10, 1972, be considered as an amended motion for new trial or as a nullity, the appellant has failed to timely file her appeal bond.

If it is considered as a nullity, the appellant’s purported amended motion for new trial filed April 28, 1972, cannot be considered because it was not filed within twenty days of the filing of the original motion effective March 30, 1972. Valley Transit Co. v. Lopez, 263 S.W.2d 830 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1953, writ ref’d). The premature motion was thereby overruled by operation of law forty-five days later, on May 15, 1972. Rule 329b, T.R.C.P.

Thus, the appeal bond was not timely filed as required by Rule 356(a), T.R.C.P., and this court is without jurisdiction. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Klingeman, 242 S.W.2d 950 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1951, writ ref’d).

If the motion filed on April 10, 1972 is considered an amended motion for new trial, then the motion filed on April 28, 1972 cannot be considered at all because only one amended motion for new trial can be filed. Rule 329b, T.R.C.P.; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Gladney, 335 S.W.2d 792 (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco 1960, writ ref’d, n. r. e.). If we consider the motion filed April 10, 1972, as an amended motion, it was overruled by operation of law on May 25, 1972.

The appeal bond was not filed within thirty days from May 25, 1972, and the court does not have jurisdiction. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Klingeman, supra.

From the foregoing, this court does not have jurisdiction and therefore appellee’s motion to dismiss is in all respects granted.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joseph F . Hoffman

V .

Michael Nolin, et al .

No . 06-fp-12 8

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERI S

Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee .

This case has been assigned civil number 06-cv-128-PB .

SO ORDERED .

United States Magistrate Judg e

Date : May 22, 200 6

cc : Joseph F . Hoffman, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00128-PB Document 5 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1286 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1286

                   For the relief of Kuan-Fan Hsieh.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 28, 2001

  Mr. Thompson of California introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Kuan-Fan Hsieh.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR KUAN-FAN HSIEH.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Kuan-Fan Hsieh shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Kuan-Fan Hsieh enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), she 
shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Kuan-Fan Hsieh, the Secretary 
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the 
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant 
visas that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's 
birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, 
if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
available to natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 
202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Kuan-Fan 
Hsieh shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, 
privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1448 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 1448

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 25, 2002

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To clarify the tax treatment of bonds and other obligations issued by 
                   the Government of American Samoa.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF TAX TREATMENT OF BONDS AND OTHER 
              OBLIGATIONS ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF AMERICAN SAMOA.

    (a) Exemption of All Bonds From Income Taxation by State and Local 
Governments.--Subsection (b) of section 202 of Public Law 98-454 (48 
U.S.C. 1670) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(b) Exemption of All Bonds From Income Taxation by State and 
Local Governments.--
            ``(1) In general.--The interest on any bond or other 
        obligation issued by or on behalf of the Government of American 
        Samoa shall be exempt from taxation by the Government of 
        American Samoa and the governments of any of the several 
        States, the District of Columbia, any territory or possession 
        of the United States, and any subdivision thereof.
            ``(2) Exemption applicable only to income taxes.--The 
        exemption provided by paragraph (1) shall not apply to gift, 
        estate, inheritance, legacy, succession, or other wealth 
        transfer taxes.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 24, 2002.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Certificate Number: 05781-NH-DE-022615389

Bankruptcy Case Number: 13-12337

05781-NH-DE-022615389

CERTIFICATE OF DEBTOR EDUCATION

I CERTIFY that on January 17, 2014, at 4:37 o'clock PM PST, John J.

LaCortiglia completed a course on personal financial management given by

telephone by Sage Personal Finance, a provider approved pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §

111 to provide an instructional course concerning personal financial management

in the District of New Hampshire.

Date: January 17, 2014 By: /s/Allison M Geving

Name: Allison M Geving

Title: President

Case: 13-12337-BAH Doc #: 10 Filed: 01/20/14 Desc: Main Document Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

ALEAH MEYER, 

Defendant. 

8:23CR112 

ORDER 

 

The court has been presented a Financial Affidavit (CJA Form 23) signed by the 

above-named defendant in support of a request for appointed counsel. After a review of 

the Financial Affidavit, I find that the above-named defendant is eligible for appointment 

of counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. §3006A, and Amended 

Criminal Justice Act Plan for the District of Nebraska. 

IT IS ORDERED that Stuart J. Dornan is appointed as attorney of record for the 

above-named defendant in this matter and shall forthwith file an appearance in this 

matter. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Federal Public Defender’s Office shall 

forthwith provide counsel with a draft appointment order (CJA Form 20) bearing the 

name and other identifying information of the CJA Panel attorney identified in 

accordance with the Criminal Justice Act Plan for this district. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall provide a copy of this order to 

the Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska and Stuart J. Dornan. 

 DATED this 31st day of May, 2023. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Michael D. Nelson 

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00112-RFR-SMB Doc # 15 Filed: 05/31/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 40
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2018-5 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the “Servicer”), does hereby
certify and represent that:

| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of November 20, 2018, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA
Inc., Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2018-5 and Wilmington Trust, National Association (the “Agreement”) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement
in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.
| | ---------------------------
| |                            
| | By:                        
| | Name:                      
| | Title:                     
| | Date:                      
| |                            
| | By:                        
| | Name:                      
| | Title:                     
| | Date:
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Covance Inc. (“Covance”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedJune 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, William E. Klitgaard, Corporate Senior Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer of Covance, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

(1)          The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Covance.
| Date:  | July 31, 2007                         |   |   |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|   |                                  |   |
|   | /s/ William E. Klitgaard              |   |
|   |  William E. Klitgaard            |
|   |  Corporate Senior Vice President |
|   |  and Chief Financial Officer     |
|   |  (Principal Financial Officer)   |

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 27, 2017

a0619

Order 

Clerk

June 27, 2017

154531

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154531

COA: 326462 

Wayne CC: 14-003750-FC

DENORIA LUCCI SMITH, a/k/a DENORIO SMITH,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 11, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed May 13, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-12-01436-CV

HYACINTH ANYANYA, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A

ALL SAINTS HOMECARE MEDICAL SUPPLY, Appellant

V.

SHOPRIDER MOBILITY PRODUCTS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-11-05000-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices FitzGerald, Murphy, and Lewis 

Opinion by Justice Murphy

Before the Court is appellee’s May 3, 2013 motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellee 

contends the appeal should be dismissed because appellant has failed to file her brief.

By postcard notice dated March 5, 2013, the Court informed appellant that her brief was 

past due and instructed her to file her brief along with an extension motion within ten days. The 

Court cautioned appellant that failure to file her brief with an extension motion within the time 

specified would result in dismissal of the appeal. 

As of today’s date, appellant has not filed her brief. Accordingly, we grant appellee’s 

motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1) & 42.3(b).

121436F.P05

/Mary Murphy/

MARY MURPHY

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

HYACINTH ANYANYA, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A 

ALL SAINTS HOMECARE 

MEDICAL SUPPLY, Appellant

No. 05-12-01436-CV V.

SHOPRIDER MOBILITY 

PRODUCTS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 3, Dallas County, Texas.

Trial Court Cause No. CC-11-05000-C.

Opinion delivered by Justice Murphy. 

Justices FitzGerald and Lewis, participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee, SHOPRIDER MOBILITY PRODUCTS, INC., recover its 

costs of this appeal from appellant, HYACINTH ANYANYA, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A 

ALL SAINTS HOMECARE MEDICAL SUPPLY.

Judgment entered this 13th day of May, 2013.

/Mary Murphy/

MARY MURPHY

JUSTICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Raymond Ngankou

v. Civil No. 06-cv-309-JD

United States of America

PROCEDURAL ORDER

This is a § 2255 petition. Counsel for the petitioner has

requested travel expenses so that she can meet with her client at

Allenwood Low FCI in Pennsylvania. The request includes airline

and hotel expenses. The request is denied.

The hearing in this case is scheduled for January 22, 2007. 

The United States Marshal is ordered to transport the petitioner

to this district several weeks before the hearing so that his

counsel can meet with him. The United States Marshal shall

inform counsel when the defendant arrives in this district. 

Counsel may request the United States Marshal to transport the

petitioner to the courthouse where she will be able to meet with

him when necessary in a confidential setting.

Prior to the defendant’s arrival in this district, counsel

may make unmonitored telephone calls to her client by making

arrangements with his unit counselor. The local United States

Case 1:06-cv-00309-JD Document 11 Filed 11/27/06 Page 1 of 2
2

Probation Office can facilitate this and counsel should be in

contact with that office in order to arrange for those calls.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

November 27, 2006

cc: Sandra F. Bloomenthal, Esquire

Aixa Maldonado-Quinones, Esquire

Robert J. Veiga, Esquire

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cv-00309-JD Document 11 Filed 11/27/06 Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-50395

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PEDRO THIESSEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. P-97-CR-229-2

- - - - - - - - - -

December 10, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pedro Thiessen appeals his sentence following a guilty-plea

conviction for importation of marijuana and possession with

intent to distribute marijuana. He challenges the district

court’s finding that he was not entitled to a reduction in his

offense level for his minor role in the offenses. 

We do not address Thiessen’s argument regarding Stinson v.

United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993), and the commentary to § 3B1.2

because the district court did not apply a “substantially less

culpable” standard. Although the district court found initially 
No. 98-50395

-2-

that Thiessen was less culpable than Harms in the overall scheme,

in light of the length of the proposed journey from Mexico to

Canada and all that entailed, the district court determined that

Thiessen and Harms must have “joined up in a partnership” to

carry out the offenses charged. The court’s finding that

Thiessen was not a minor participant is not clearly erroneous. 

The district court’s determination that Thiessen was less

culpable than Harms or other participants did not, standing

alone, entitle him to the two-point reduction of a minor

participant. See United States v. Zuniga, 18 F.3d 1254, 1261

(5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Thomas, 932 F.2d 1085, 1092

(5th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court

is AFFIRMED.