alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1392

To amend the Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Program

Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2002 through 2006.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

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

Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To amend the Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Program Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2002 through 2006.

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

3 That section 506 of the Incentive Grants for Local Delin4 quency Prevention Program Act (42 U.S.C. 5785) is

5 amended by striking ‘‘such sums’’ and all that follows

6 through ‘‘1996’’, and inserting ‘‘$250,000,000 for each of

7 the fiscal years 2002 through 2006’’.

Æ
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-20-00403-CV

CARROLL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 

DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES;

MICHELLE MOORE, IN HER CAPACITY 

AS TRUSTEE AND PRESIDENT OF THE 

CARROLL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 

DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES; SHERI 

MILLS, IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE 

OF THE CARROLL INDEPENDENT 

SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF 

TRUSTEES; AND TODD CARLTON, IN 

HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE

CARROLL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 

DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES,

Appellants

V.

KRISTIN GARCIA, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 153rd District 

Court

of Tarrant County (153-319405-20)

October 14, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Birdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

 Justice Wade Birdwell
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

NICHOLAS HEITMAN, 

Defendant. 

4:23CR3058 

RESTRICTED ORDER 

 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1) Defendant’s Initial Appearance and Detention Hearing will be held at 1:30 

p.m. on July 29, 2024 before the undersigned magistrate judge. 

2) Defendant, defense counsel, and counsel for the government shall attend. 

3) The defendant will appear by videoconference using Zoom. At the time of 

the hearing, the defendant must be connected to the videoconference using 

the connection information below. 

https://ned-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1608283325?pwd=NHRLREZudW5adzJEZnkvTUY5S0Q5QT09

Meeting ID: 160 828 3325 

Password: 235417 

IP/H.323: 161.199.138.10 

SIP: 160 828 3325@sip.zoomgov.com 

4) Counsel for the parties, supervising officers, and any proposed third-party 

custodians may attend the hearing by either: 

a. Videoconference using the connection information in Paragraph 3, 

or 

b. Telephone by calling 669-254-5252, and when prompted, dial the 

meeting ID and password. 

5) Any party who intends to call a witness (other than a supervising officer or 

a proposed third-party custodian) must promptly contact the chambers of 

the undersigned magistrate judge to set a telephone conference regarding 

the issues to be addressed by the witness’ testimony and the method of 

appearance to be used by that witness. 

4:23-cr-03058-SMB-JMD Doc # 61 Filed: 07/24/24 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 103
6) Absent leave of the court, this shall be filed as a restricted access order. 

Attorneys, jail facilities, and any others who receive this order are 

prohibited from redistributing it to others.

 Dated this 24th day of July, 2024. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Jacqueline M. DeLuca 

United States Magistrate Judge 

4:23-cr-03058-SMB-JMD Doc # 61 Filed: 07/24/24 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 104
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-204-01-SM

Jesse Harless

O R D E R

Defendant Harless’ motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 10). Trial has been rescheduled for the October

2006 trial period. Defendant Harless shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

not later than April 28, 2006. 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: September 25, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: October 3, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:05-cr-00204-SM Document 11 Filed 04/19/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

April 19, 2006

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Arnold Huftalen, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00204-SM Document 11 Filed 04/19/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

USCOC of New Hampshire RSA #2

d/b/a US Cellular,

Plaintiff

v. Civil No. 05-cv-268-SM

City of Concord, NH,

Defendant

ORDER OF RECUSAL

Due to my having a financial interest in the plaintiff

company, US Cellular, 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: Steven E. Grill, Esq.

James P. Bassett, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00268-JL Document 16 Filed 06/21/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-35-02-SM

Serjio Philbrick

O R D E R

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

trial is granted (document 36). Trial has been rescheduled for the February 

2007 trial period. Defendant Philbrick shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

not later than September 29, 2006. 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. 

Change of Plea Hearing: January 29, 2007 at 11:00 a.m.

Jury Selection (if necessary): February 6, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00035-SM Document 38 Filed 09/21/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

September 21, 2006

cc: Jeffrey S. Levin, Esq.

James Gleason, Esq.

William E. Morse, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00035-SM Document 38 Filed 09/21/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 06-cr-70-01-SM

William Prentice

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 16) is granted

in part, denied in part. Trial has been rescheduled for the December 2006 trial period.

Defendant shall file a Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than August 10, 2006. 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 the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account the

Case 1:06-cr-00070-SM Document 17 Filed 08/01/06 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: November 27, 2006 at 4:30 PM 

Jury Selection: December 5, 2006 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

August 1, 2006 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Terry Ollila. Esq.

 Jorel Booker, Esq.

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00070-SM Document 17 Filed 08/01/06 Page 2 of 2
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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned
officers of Rand Capital Corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2015 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                                 
|--------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 4, 2015 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Allen F. Grum
Allen F. Grum, President
(Chief Executive Officer)            
|                      |  |  | 
|Dated: August 4, 2015 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Daniel P. Penberthy
Daniel P. Penberthy, Treasurer
(Chief Financial Officer)
181 La. 972

#### TREIGLE SASH FACTORY, Inc., v. CONSERVATIVE HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION.

No. 33072.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 4, 1935.

Rehearing Denied April 1,1935.

Weiss, Yarrut & Stich, D. H. Theard, Legier, McEnerny *&*Waguespack, Carroll, McCall & Plough, A. D. Danziger & P. H. Stern, J. G. Dempsey, Jr., D. J. Murphy, J. Zaeh Spearing, Scott E. Beer, and Hyman Mithoff, all of New Orleans; for appellant.

Alex W. Swords, A. Giffen Levy, and Hugh Wilkinson, all of New Orleans, for appellee.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

This is one of the cases mentioned in the opinion rendered today in the case of Camille V. Treigle v. Acme Homestead Association (La. Sup.) 160 So. 637.

For the reasons given in that case, the judgment appealed from is annulled and reversed, and the demand of the plaintiff is rejected, and its suit dismissed at its cost.

ODOM, J., dissents.
#### The State, ex rel. Willis, *v.*Kautz, Judge.

(No. 24153

Decided October 18, 1933.)

*Mr. Coleman Avery*and *Mr. John F. Neilan,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Williams, Sohngen, Fitton & Pierce, Messrs. Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith é Hoadly*and *Messrs. Pogue, Hoffheimer é Pogue,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said Court of Appeals be, and the same is hereby, affirmed on authority of *State, ex rel. Carmody,*v. *Justice, Judge,*114 Ohio St., 94, and *Silliman*v. *Court of Common Pleas of Williams County,*126 Ohio St., 338.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Jones, Matthias, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.3

Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Certifications

 I, Tom Matura, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Eagle Broadband, 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 operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant'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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures and presented in this report our conclusions abut 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 registrant's internal control
     over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's recent
     fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
     materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
     reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control
     over financial reporting.

Date April 11, 2005


/s/ Tom Matura
Tom Matura
Principal Accounting Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Darren Starr, pro se,

Plaintiff

v. Case No. 05-cv-264-SM

Cpl. Denis Dube, and

Lt. John Loven,

Defendants

NOTICE OF RULING

Re: (Document No. 92) Plaintiff’s Motion for Transcript at

Government’s Expense

Ruling: Denied. Plaintiff is an inmate serving a lengthy

state sentence. He brought a civil suit (42 U.S.C. Section 1983)

against state prison officials based on allegations that his

personal property had been intentionally destroyed during a

punitive cell search conducted in retaliation for his having

exercised his First Amendment rights by invoking the prison's

grievance procedures. A jury trial was had and a verdict

unfavorable to plaintiff was returned. Plaintiff was granted in

forma pauperis status, noticed an appeal, and now seeks a free

transcript (more specifically, one provided at federal expense)

of the trial proceedings. Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

Section 753(f), "[f]ees for transcripts furnished in other

proceedings to persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis

shall also be paid by the United States if the trial judge or a

circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but

presents a substantial question)." The motion is silent with

regard to the issues raised, or to be raised, on appeal, so this

court is unable to certify that the appeal is not frivolous and

presents a substantial question. The statute provides that the

required certification may be made by either the trial judge or a

circuit judge sitting in the court where the appeal is pending. 

Accordingly, the motion is denied, but without prejudice to

plaintiff's renewing the motion and making some effort to show

that he can meet the statutory prerequisite — a non-frivolous

appeal and a substantial question to be raised.

Entered by: Steven J. McAuliffe, Chief Judge

April 17, 2008

cc: Darren Starr, pro se

Glenn A.Perlow, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00264-SM Document 94 Filed 04/17/08 Page 1 of 1
exv10w2



 






Exhibit 10.2



Schedule 1 to Exhibit 10.1 — Individual Deviations from Form of Management Board Service Agreement.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Art. 1, para. (1)	 	Art. 1, para. (3)	 	Art. 2, para. (1)	 	Art. 2, para. (2)	 	Art. 6, para. (1)
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Membership in the	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Date of Supervisory	 	Board of	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Board
Resolution /	 	Management of	 	Fixed Annual	 	Annual Target	 	 
	Name	 	Date of Birth	 	Place of Birth	 	Appointment Period	 	other Group Companies	 	Compensation*	 	Bonus*	 	Term of the Contract
	Dr. Bernotat

	 	September 14, 1948
	 	Göttingen
	 	September 3, 2002 /

May 1, 2003 – April 30, 2008
	 	—
	 	€1,150,000
	 	€1,800,000
	 	January 1, 2005 – April 30, 2008
	Dr. Bergmann

	 	February 11, 1943
	 	Sendenhorst/Beckum
	 	March 5, 2003 and March 9, 2005 /

March 5, 2003 – February 29, 2008
	 	E.ON Ruhrgas AG**
	 	€700,000
	 	€1,100,000
	 	January 1, 2005 – February 29, 2008
	Dr. Gaul

	 	March 2,1942
	 	Düsseldorf
	 	April 30, 2003 and March 9, 2005 /

April 1, 2004 – March 31, 2007
	 	—
	 	€700,000
	 	€1,100,000
	 	January 1, 2005 – March 31, 2007
	Dr. Krüper

	 	November 19, 1941
	 	Gelsenkirchen
	 	December 19, 2002 and March 9, 2005 /

December 1, 2003 – November 30, 2006
	 	—
	 	€700,000
	 	€1,100,000
	 	January 1, 2005 – November 30, 2006
	Dr. Schipporeit

	 	January 19, 1949
	 	Bitterfeld
	 	March 29, 2000 and August 11, 2004 /

June 16, 2000 – January 31, 2009
	 	—
	 	€700,000
	 	€1,100,000
	 	January 1, 2005 – January 31, 2009
	Dr. Teyssen

	 	October 9, 1959
	 	Hildesheim
	 	December 11, 2003 /

January 1, 2004 – December 31, 2008
	 	E.ON Energie AG**
	 	€700,000
	 	€1,100,000
	 	January 1, 2005 – December 31, 2008




___________


* with effect from January 1, 2005

** compensation fully covered by contract with E.ON AG
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

MARCUS GREEN,

Defendant.

4:23CR3055

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:

The Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska is appointed to 

represent the above named defendant in this matter. In the event that the 

Federal Public Defender accepts this appointment, the Federal Public Defender 

shall forthwith file an appearance in this matter. In the event the Federal Public 

Defender should decline this appointment for reason of conflict or on the basis of 

the Criminal Justice Act Plan, the Federal Public Defender shall forthwith provide 

the court 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.

DATED this 23rd day of May, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cr-03055-JMG-CRZ Doc # 14 Filed: 05/23/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

David W. Fiore

v. Case No. 06-cv-072-JD

United States of America

NOTICE OF RULING

Re: Document No. 4, Motion for Certificate of Appealability,

Ruling: Denied. The petitioner failed to file his

section 2255 motion within the time limit provided by

statute, he did not present any basis for finding that he

fell within any exception, and he has failed to make a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right under these circumstances.

Date: April 19, 2006

cc: David W. Fiore, pro se

Mark E. Howard, Esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00072-JD Document 5 Filed 04/19/06 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

RAUL I. CALDERON,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

PERDITION NATE SCHWAB,

Defendant.

4:23CV3101

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On May 30, 2023, the Clerk of 

the Court sent a Notice, Filing No. 2, a copy of General Order No. 2022-04, Filing No. 3,

and a Text Notice of Deficiency, Filing No. 4 (text order), to Plaintiff at his last known 

address and they were returned to this Court as undeliverable. See Filing No. 6. 

Plaintiff has an obligation to keep the Court informed of his current address at all times. 

See NEGenR 1.3(e) and (g) (requiring pro se parties to adhere to local rules and inform 

the Court of address changes within 30 days). This case cannot be prosecuted in this 

Court if Plaintiff’s whereabouts remain unknown. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff must update his address within 30 days. Failure to do so will 

result in dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff. 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his 

last known address and to the following address:

Raul I. Calderon, X-1746475, 3WEST20032

Sacramento County Main Jail

651 “I” Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

4:23-cv-03101-JFB-PRSE Doc # 7 Filed: 06/21/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 15
2

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to set a pro se case management 

deadline in this case using the following text: July 21, 2023: check for address.

Dated this 21st day of June, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

4:23-cv-03101-JFB-PRSE Doc # 7 Filed: 06/21/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 16
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.2


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

Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, Barry D. Elkins, hereby certify that,
to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Direct General Corporation
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in that
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Direct General Corporation.


November 13, 2003      By: /s/ Barry D. Elkins
-----------------          ----------------------------------------------------
     Date                                        (Signature)
                       Name: Barry D. Elkins
                             --------------------------------------------------
                       Title: Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                              -------------------------------------------------