alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 72-795.

#### Leathers *v.*Massell et al.

Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ga. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 8:00CR68

)

vs. ) ORDER FOR DISMISSAL

)

ADAM COLIN, )

)

Defendant. )

Pursuant to Motion of the United States (Filing No. 31), pursuant to Federal Rule of

Criminal Procedure 48(a), leave of court is granted for the filing of the dismissal of the

Indictment against Adam Colin.

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss the Indictment (Filing No. 31) is granted.

Dated this 4th day of February, 2009.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon 

JOSEPH F. BATAILLON

United States District Judge

8:00-cr-00068-JFB-FG3 Doc # 32 Filed: 02/04/09 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 26
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             935
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           7,964
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         59
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           6,237
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             6,184
<LOANS>                                         85,322
<ALLOWANCE>                                        345
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 103,578
<DEPOSITS>                                      79,308
<SHORT-TERM>                                     3,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                516
<LONG-TERM>                                      4,756
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           108
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,890
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 103,578
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,999
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  255
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   259
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,513
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,707
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 289
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,517
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       29
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,259
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    469
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         469
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       284
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.08
<LOANS-NON>                                        384
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   325
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       18
<RECOVERIES>                                        10
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  345
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               345
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
cann_ex103.htm

EXHIBIT 10.3
 
 
 
 
 
 
	 
	1

	

	 


 
 
	 
	2

	

	 


 
 
	 
	3

	

	 


 
 
 
 

	4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-182-01-JD

Waika Arroyo

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

13) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver 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

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

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: January 22, 2007

cc: Harry Batchelder, Esq.

Mark Zuckerman, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00182-JD Document 14 Filed 01/22/07 Page 1 of 1
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1249

To ensure that crop losses resulting from plant viruses and other plant

diseases are covered by crop insurance and the noninsured crop assistance program and that agricultural producers who suffer such losses

are eligible for emergency loans.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 27, 2001

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To ensure that crop losses resulting from plant viruses and

other plant diseases are covered by crop insurance and

the noninsured crop assistance program and that agricultural producers who suffer such losses are eligible for

emergency loans.

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

3 SECTION 1. COVERAGE FOR CROP LOSSES FROM PLANT

4 DISEASE UNDER CROP INSURANCE AND NON5 INSURED CROP ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

6 (a) CROP INSURANCE PROGRAM.—Section 508 of the

7 Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508) is amended
2

•HR 1249 IH

1 in subsections (a)(1) and (b)(1) by inserting ‘‘plant dis2 ease,’’ after ‘‘flood,’’.

3 (b) NONINSURED CROP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.—

4 Section 196(a)(3) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement

5 and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333(a)(3)) is amend6 ed by inserting ‘‘plant disease,’’ after ‘‘flood,’’.

7 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO MAKE EMERGENCY DISASTER

8 LOANS FOR FARMING OPERATIONS SUBSTAN9 TIALLY AFFECTED BY A PLANT DISEASE.

10 Section 321(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural

11 Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1961(a)) is amended by in12 serting ‘‘or plant disease’’ after ‘‘natural disaster’’ each

13 place such term appears.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

IMS Health Incorporated, et al. 

 v. Case No. 06-cv-280-PB 

Kelly Ayotte, as Attorney General 

of the State of New Hampshire 

O R D E R

 The parties agree that the Supreme Court’s recent decision 

in Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 131 S.Ct. 2653 (2011) requires 

“invalidation of N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 318:47-F and 318-B:12 

to the extent that they prohibit the transfer, use, sale, or 

licensing of prescriber-identifiable data.” Accordingly, they 

have asked me to reinstate the court’s May 7, 2007 judgment for 

the plaintiffs. 

 I have reviewed Sorrell and agree that it requires the 

invalidation of the above-referenced statutes because they 

improperly restrict speech protected by the First Amendment. In 

reaching this conclusion, I rely on the reasoning of my April 

30, 2007 Memorandum and Order (Doc. No. 126), which I 

incorporate by reference. 

Case 1:06-cv-00280-PB Document 176 Filed 10/07/11 Page 1 of 2
2 

 By agreement of the parties, each party shall bear their 

own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. 

 The Joint Report and Motion for Entry of Order and Final 

Judgment (Doc. No. 173) is granted. 

SO ORDERED. 

 /s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro 

United States District Judge 

October 7, 2011 

cc: Counsel of Record 

Case 1:06-cv-00280-PB Document 176 Filed 10/07/11 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ROBERT JOHNSON,

Defendant.

8:23CR108

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendant's MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE 

PRETRIAL MOTIONS [24]. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. 

Defendant will be given an approximate 30-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by 

July 13, 2023. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant's MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PRETRIAL MOTIONS

[24] is granted. Pretrial motions shall be filed on or before July 13, 2023.

2. The ends of justice have been served by granting such motion and outweigh the 

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The additional time arising as a result 

of the granting of the motion, i.e., the time between June 13, 2023, and July 13, 2023, shall be 

deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial 

Act for the reason defendant's counsel required additional time to adequately prepare the case, 

taking into consideration due diligence of counsel, and the novelty and complexity of this case. 

The failure to grant additional time might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 

3161(h)(7)(A) & (B).

Dated this 14th day of June, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00108-BCB-MDN Doc # 25 Filed: 06/14/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 44
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Horacio AYON-ENCINAS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-10226.

D.C. No. CR-01-00153-ECR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 17, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Horacio Ayon-Encinas appeals his conviction pursuant to guilty plea and his 56-month sentence for unlawful reentry by a deported, removed and/or excluded alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Ayon-Encinas contends that he cannot be subjected to a sentencing enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) because that statute only applies to aliens who have been removed, and not to aliens who have been deported or excluded, as Ayon-Encinas was. This contention lacks merit because we have held that there is no legally significant distinction between “deportation” and “removal” for purposes of the crime defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and the enhancement under section 1326(b). *See United States v. Lopez-Gonzalez,*183 F.3d 933, 934-35 (9th Cir.1999).

Ayon-Encinas also contends that the district court violated his rights under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) because 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) describes a separate crime from subsection (a), and must be pled in the indictment. As he acknowledges, this issue has been foreclosed by *United States v. Arellano-Rivera,*244 F.3d 1119, 1127 (9th Cir.2001), *cert. denied,*535 U.S. 976, 122 S.Ct. 1450, 152 L.Ed.2d 392 (2002); *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411, 414-15 (9th Cir.2000), *cert. denied,*532 U.S. 966, 121 S.Ct. 1503, 149 L.Ed.2d 388 (2001).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 24, 2024.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 24, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24D0334. LAVELLE MORRING v. ANGELINA MORRING.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

22CV01505
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Cash  Technologies,  Inc. on Form
10-QSB/A for the period ended November 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  being,
Bruce Korman,  Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  and Edmund King,  Chief
Financial Officer of the Company,  respectfully,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350,  as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

Dated: May 25, 2005


/s/ Bruce Korman                               /s/ Edmund King
-----------------------------                  ---------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer                        Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  (Section  906), or other  document  authenticating,
acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the signature  that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,
has been  provided  to Cash  Technologies,  Inc.  and will be  retained  by Cash
Technologies,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Comcast of Maine/New Hampshire, Inc.

v. 06-cv-14-SM

Victor Violette

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 41.1, as neither an agreement for

judgment nor a stipulation for dismissal has been filed, this case is herewith dismissed with 

prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

June 8 , 2006 ________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: John M. McLaughlin, Esq.

R. Peter Shapiro, Esq.

Richard Johnston, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00014-SM Document 7 Filed 06/08/06 Page 1 of 1
#### BELTON v. WILLIAMS et al.

No. 6382.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Oct. 28, 1943.

Wood & Wood, of Leesville, and Olin D. Moore, of Many, for appellants.

J. S. Pickett and R. A. Fraser, both of Many, for appellee.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

On application of counsel of defendants, appellants, the record in this case was returned to the lower court to the end that a service of notice of appeal could be had upon the widow and heirs of George W. Belton, original plaintiff, who had died. This was done as prayed for and the record accordingly completed. Thereafter the substituted plaintiffs, appellees, sued ■out a rule on the appellants to show cause why the order of the court dated April 21, 1941, authorizing and permitting them to take and prosecute a devolutive appeal herein without the payment of costs, present or future, and without furnishing appeal bond, should not be annulled and set aside. The rule came on for trial and there was judgment as prayed for by ap-pellees. This occurred on June 11, 1942.

It satisfactorily appears that appellants have not procured any order of appeal nor have they tendered bond therefor since rendition of the judgment on the rule. In other words, appellants have not perfected an appeal since June 11, 1942. Ap-pellees, in this court, have moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that more than one year has elapsed since rendition of judgment on the rule, and, therefore, the original judgment on the merits is now res judicata.

In reality, the present status of the appeal is the same as if no order of appeal preceded it, since the order of appeal originally taken has been, contradictorily with appellants, set aside.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is sustained, and this appeal is hereby dismissed at the cost of appellants.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ECHELON INTERNATIONAL FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31,
1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          21,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                    53,100
<INVENTORY>                                     53,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,500
<PP&E>                                         252,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 516,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,100
<BONDS>                                        128,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                     217,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   516,600
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,800
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    900
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,200)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Josephine Amatucci

v. Civil No. 05-cv-259-SM

Charles Hamilton, et al

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated January 20, 2006, no objection having been filed. All claims

against defendants Davey, Varney, Black, the Town of Wolfeboro and the

Wolfeboro Police Department are dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

March 7 , 2006 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Josephine Amatucci, pro se

R. Matthew Cairns, Esq.

Lisa Lee, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00259-SM Document 19 Filed 03/07/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William J . Carey

V .

Charles Ward and Denise Hartley

No . 06-fp-29 3

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-293-SM .

SO ORDERED .

R . Mu i rhead

Date : August 7, 2006

rtted States Magistrate Judge

cc : William J . Carey, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00293-SM Document 4 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Charles Jay Wolff

V .

NH Department of Corrections, et al .

No . 06-fp-32 1

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-321-PB .

SO ORDERED .

am R. Muirhead

nited States Magistrate Judg e

Date : September 5, 200 6

cc : Charles Jay Wolff, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 8 Filed 09/05/06 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1325 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1325

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 3160 Irvin Cobb Drive in Paducah, Kentucky, as the ``Morgan 
                               Station''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2001

Mr. Whitfield introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 3160 Irvin Cobb Drive in Paducah, Kentucky, as the ``Morgan 
                               Station''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3160 
Irvin Cobb Drive in Paducah, Kentucky, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Morgan Station''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the Morgan Station.
                                 <all>
```
Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, August 29, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16A2029. JAMES EDWARD BOYD v. THE STATE.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rules 22 (a) and 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration 

of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals 

Rule 13.

On July 25, 2016, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a 

brief no later than August 01, 2016. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of 

errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is 

hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).

Because procedural deficiencies have deprived the appellant of the right of appellate 

review, the appellant is hereby informed of the following in accordance with Rowland v. State, 

264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995):

This Court has dismissed your appeal because an enumeration of errors and a 

brief have not been filed on your behalf as required. If this failure occurred while 

you were represented by legal counsel and was due to your appellate counsel's 

failure to perform the duties of appellate counsel, and if you still wish to appeal, 

you may file a motion in the trial court for permission to pursue an out-of-time 

appeal. If the trial court grants your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will 

have 30 days from the filing date of the order granting your motion to file in the 

trial court a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence. If the 

trial court denies your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days 

from the filing date of the order denying your motion to file in the trial court a 

notice of appeal from that order.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 29, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant as well as to 

the appellant's attorney of record, if any. The appellant's attorney is also directed to send a copy 

of this order to the appellant.