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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

CESAR GONZALEZ, and JESUS MANUEL 

SILVA-HUIZAR, 

Defendants. 

8:23CR122 

ORDER 

 

Defendant, Cesar Gonzalez, has moved to continue the trial, (Filing No. 47), because he 

needs additional time to consider and decide whether to enter a guilty plea. The motion to continue 

is unopposed by the co-defendant and the government. The undersigned magistrate judge held a 

telephone conference with the attorneys regarding the motion. Based on the showing set forth in 

the motion, and the comments of counsel on the telephone conference, the court finds the motion 

should be granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1) Defendant’s Motion to Continue, (Filing No. 47), is granted. 

2) The trial of this case as to both defendants is continued pending further order of the 

court. 

3) A telephonic conference with counsel will be held before the undersigned 

magistrate judge at 10:00 a.m. on January 19, 2024 to discuss setting any change 

of plea hearing or the date of the jury trial. Counsel for all parties shall use the 

conferencing instructions provided by the court to participate in the call. 

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

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

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

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

19, 2024, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the 

requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant a continuance would deny 

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

the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv). Failing to 

timely object to this order as provided under this court’s local rules will be deemed 

8:23-cr-00122-BCB-SMB Doc # 50 Filed: 11/07/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 128
a waiver of any right to later claim the time should not have been excluded under 

the Speedy Trial Act. 

 Dated this 7th day of November, 2023. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Susan M. Bazis 

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00122-BCB-SMB Doc # 50 Filed: 11/07/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 129
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-64-01-SM

Dennis B. Hammons

O R D E R

Defendant Hammons’ motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 20). Trial has been rescheduled for the May 2007

trial period. Defendant Hammons shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than March 2, 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: April 24, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: May 1, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00064-SM Document 21 Filed 02/23/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

February 23, 2007

cc: David W. Ruoff, Esq.

David Vicinanzo, Esq. 

Alfred Rubega, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00064-SM Document 21 Filed 02/23/07 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18of the United States Code

I, Ralph Izzo, Chief Executive Officer of PSEG Power LLC, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of PSEG Power LLC on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of PSEG Power LLC.

| | /s/
    Ralph Izzo                                        
| | ----------------------------------------------------------
| | Ralph IzzoPSEG Power LLCChief Executive OfficerMay 6, 2008



---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michaela Gingras

b/n/f Justine Gingras

Plaintiff

v. Civil No. 05-cv-378-SM

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Defendant

ORDER OF RECUSAL

Due to my having a financial interest in the defendant

company, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., recusal is mandatory. See,

28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4). It appears that only preliminary and

assented to, or unobjected to, motions have been resolved,

however, any party may revisit any motion previously resolved

with the newly assigned judge, within ten (10) days of notice of

reassignment, as they desire.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

June 21, 2006

cc: Stephen R. Fine, Esq.

E. Tupper Kinder, Esq.

Christopher D. Hawkins, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00378-JD Document 9 Filed 06/21/06 Page 1 of 1
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1 TP 16-00249** 
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND LINDLEY, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF NATHAN BROWN, PETITIONER,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ALBERT PRACK, DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL HOUSING, R. CALIDONNA, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT ADMINISTRATION, AND MOHAWK CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RESPONDENTS.

NATHAN BROWN, PETITIONER PRO SE.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County [Norman I. Siegel, J.], entered July 2, 2015) to review a determination of respondents. The determination found after a tier III hearing that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to annul a determination finding him guilty, following a tier III hearing, of violating various inmate rules, and imposing a penalty. At the outset, we note that, “ ‘[b]ecause the petition did not raise a substantial evidence issue, Supreme Court erred in transferring the proceeding to this Court’ ” ( Matter of Wearen v Deputy Supt. Bish , 2 AD3d 1361, 1362). In the interest of judicial economy, we nevertheless address petitioner’s contention that he was denied his right to contact his attorney ( see id. ). Nothing in the record indicates that petitioner sought to contact his attorney prior to the hearing ( cf. Matter of Jeckel v New York State Dept. of Corr. , 111 AD3d 1180, 1181). Rather, the record establishes that petitioner asked to consult with his attorney after the tier III hearing commenced, and it is well established that an inmate does not have a right to counsel at that hearing ( see Wolff v McDonnell , 418 US 539, 570; Matter of Laureano v Kuhlmann , 75 NY2d 141, 146). We therefore confirm the determination and dismiss the petition.

Entered: February 3, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

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


                                                                     Thirteen Weeks Ended                Twenty-Six Weeks Ended
                                                               July 1, 2000       July 3, 1999       July 1, 2000      July 3, 1999
                                                               --------------     --------------    ---------------    -------------
                                                                         (Unaudited)
<S>                                                            <C>                <C>               <C>                 <C>
Basic
    Weighted-average number of shares
     outstanding                                                      39,672             39,362             39,577            39,259
                                                               ==============     ==============    ===============     ============
    Net income applicable to common shares                            $6,947             $5,103            $12,002            $8,698
                                                               ==============     ==============    ===============     ============
    Per share amounts
        Net income per share                                           $0.18              $0.13              $0.30             $0.22
                                                               ==============     ==============    ===============     ============
Diluted
    Basic weighted-average number of shares
       outstanding                                                    39,672             39,362             39,577            39,259
    Effect of outstanding stock options and
       deferred stock grants                                             949              1,712                189             1,709
                                                               --------------     --------------    ---------------     ------------
    Diluted weighted-average number of shares
       outstanding                                                    40,621             41,074             39,766            40,968
                                                               ==============     ==============    ===============     ============
    Net income applicable to common shares                            $6,947             $5,103            $12,002            $8,698
                                                               ==============     ==============    ===============     ============
    Per share amounts
        Net income per share                                           $0.17              $0.12              $0.30             $0.21
                                                               ==============     ==============    ===============     ============


</TABLE>
#### Ramon M. MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 44356.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 14, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 9, 1972.

*251T. P. Henley, San Antonio (on appeal only), for appellant.

Ted Butler, Dist. Atty., Earl C. Hill and Lucien B. Campbell, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for murder. The jury assessed the punishment at fifteen years.

The appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient, that the prosecutor made an improper argument and that trial counsel was incompetent.

We affirm.

The record reflects that Consuelo Oros-co, the deceased, lived in San Antonio with her children in an apartment owned by the appellant. Joe Gonzales, an eighteen-year-old high school student, testified that on May 8, 1968, at approximately eight-thirty in the evening, the appellant drove a station wagon to the curb of South Nueces Street directly in front of the apartment where Consuelo Orosco lived and called for her to come outside. She walked up to the car where he was seated. He then raised his hand and fired two shots. She yelled, “Mamacita,” grabbed her chest and ran. He fired another shot through the rear window of the station wagon. She called for someone to help her. When an officer arrived, the appellant was waving the gun and said, “I killed her, I killed her.”

Elva Jean Orosco, the eight-year-old daughter of the deceased, testified that on the day in question Ramon Martinez called for her mother to come out of the house. She did not see anything when her mother got to the car but heard something like firecrackers and saw her mother lying near the window. She then went to get her grandmother.

Several witnesses testified that they did not see the shooting but arrived shortly thereafter and heard Ramon Martinez tell the officer that he killed her.

The evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. See Grant v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 449 S.W.2d 480; Davis v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 440 S.W.2d 291; Brown v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 438 S.W.2d 926.

Next, the appellant contends that reversible error was committed when the prosecutor argued:

> “This is what you have to decide; I don’t care whether you shake your head and look the other way, this is what you are going to decide — what to do with him. I recommended a 30 year sentence for a reason. Now, understand this very carefully, remember what the instructions are; remember what you can do and what you can’t do. Please don’t do anything that you can’t do; otherwise, not only is the last part you have already accomplished out the window but we *252have to start all over again from the beginning to end.”

No objection was made. No reversible error is shown.

Apparently the main contention of the appellant is that he had ineffective assistance of counsel at the trial. The record reflects that he had three retained counsel who ably represented him. The record does not show that he had incompetent counsel or that he had ineffective representation.

The judgment is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

USCOC of New Hampshire RSA #2, Inc.

v. Case No. 05-cv-327-PB

Town of Bow

NOTICE OF RULING

Re: Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 37) re: Motion 

to Intervene (Doc. No. 7) 

Ruling: The procedural posture of the case is somewhat

confused. I assume that what I am being asked to decide is

whether the Magistrate Judge has the power to decide a motion to

intervene in a case where the parties to the action have

consented to his jurisdiction but the proposed intervenor does

not. On this question, reviewing the matter de novo, I agree

with the Seventh Circuit that the answer to the question is yes.

If, instead, the Magistrate Judge is asking me to rule on a

Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion to

intervene be allowed, I review the matter de novo and agree that

the motion should be allowed. In any event, the case is returned

to the Magistrate Judge.

/s/Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

U.S. District Judge

Date: September 6, 2006

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:05-cv-00327-PB Document 40 Filed 09/06/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,958,109
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  972,782
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (342,366)
<INVENTORY>                                    186,667
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,835,995
<PP&E>                                         755,944
<DEPRECIATION>                                (382,268)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,273,881
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          248,668
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,335
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,019,858
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,273,881
<SALES>                                        784,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               784,000
<CGS>                                          550,239
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,068,096
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (108,192)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,726,143)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,726,143)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,726,143)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.30)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.b  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Larry Bruce, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of DataJungle Software Inc., certify that: (1)I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of DataJungle Software Inc.;  (2)Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  (3)Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operation and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods represented in this report;  (4)The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c)Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  (5)The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal controls over financial reporting.   /s/ Larry Bruce Larry Bruce Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer Date: November 14, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 184 (Monday, September 22, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22038]



[[Page 54568]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Proposed Conveyance of Excess Land at Naval Air 
Station, Oceana, VA, in Exchange for a Restrictive Easement Pursuant to 
10 U.S.C. 2869

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice provides information on the proposed conveyance of 
excess land at the Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia, in exchange for 
a restrictive easement to limit encroachment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lisa Grossman; Naval Facilities 
Engineering Command; 1322 Patterson Avenue, SE., Suite 1000; Washington 
Navy Yard, DC 20374-5065; telephone: 202-685-9205. For information 
concerning real estate, contact Ms. Patty Hankins, Realty Specialist; 
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic; 9742 Maryland 
Avenue; Norfolk, Virginia 23511-3095; telephone: 757-445-6921.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C. 
2684a, the Department of the Navy and the City of Virginia Beach 
(City), Virginia, entered into a Multi-Year Agreement (MYA) to acquire 
long-term interests in lands within the vicinity of Naval Air Station, 
Oceana, Virginia, and Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, Fentress, 
Chesapeake, Virginia. The goal of the MYA is to acquire real property 
interests in the vicinity of the Installations for purposes that are 
consistent with their land and natural resources conservation 
objectives, preservation goals, and to prevent encroachment and land 
development that is incompatible with the mission of the Installations.
    10 U.S.C. 2869 provides authority for the Navy to convey excess 
property at an Installation in exchange for property interests to be 
acquired under the terms of an encroachment protection agreement 
executed in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2684a. The Navy proposes to 
convey approximately 82 acres of excess land, referred to as Marshview, 
to the City in exchange for a restrictive easement interest over 
approximately 46.59 acres of City-owned land located within the area of 
interest identified in the MYA as ideal for encroachment protection. 
The Marshview property will be conveyed in fee with deed restrictions 
limiting the property's future use to a public park with passive 
recreational use only. The restrictive easement to be acquired by the 
Navy will limit the type and amount of development, as well as the 
activities that may be conducted on the land.

    Dated: September 15, 2008.
T.M. Cruz,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-22038 Filed 9-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P