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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joshua M. Colbath

v. 06-cv-350-SM

Lakes Region Facility, Warden

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated November 14, 2006, no objection having been filed, for the

reasons set forth therein. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is hereby

dismissed without prejudice. 

SO ORDERED.

December 7, 2006 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Joshua M. Colbath, pro se 

Case 1:06-cv-00350-SM Document 6 Filed 12/07/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Han Jie YANG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, DefendantAppellee.

No. 02-9419.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Aug. 12, 2003.

*91Han Jie Yang, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.

Victor Levy, Office of General Counsel, New York City Transit Authority, Brooklyn, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT: JACOBS, F.I. PARKER, and SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Han Jie Yang appeals from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Block, *J.)*granting defendant’s motion to dismiss. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court. *See Yang v. New York City Transit Authority,*No. 01-CV-3933(FB), 2002 WL 31399119 (E.D.N.Y. Oct.24, 2002).
|EXHIBIT 15







Accountants Acknowledgment



Linens n  Things, Inc.
Clifton, New Jersey


Board of Directors:



Re:   Registration  Statements
Numbers  333-89250  and  333-90668 on  Form  S-3  and  333-71903,  333-55803,
333-42874, 333-62982  and  333-62984 on Form S-8.


With respect to the subject
registration statements, we  acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report
dated October 16,  2002 related to our review of interim financial information.



Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the
Securities Act of 1933, such  report is not considered a part of a registration statement
prepared or  certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an
accountant  within the meaning of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.


KPMG LLP



New York, New  York
November 12, 2002
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Fiscal Service 

# AGENCY:

Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This is Supplement No. 2 to the Treasury Department Circular 570, 2008 Revision, published July 1, 2008, at 73 FR 37644. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the Certificate of Authority issued by the Treasury to the above-named company under 31 U.S.C. 9305 to qualify as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds is terminated effective September 12, 2008. Federal bond-approving officials should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Department Circular 570 (“Circular”), 2008 Revision, to reflect this change. 

With respect to any bonds currently in force with this company, bond-approving officers may let such bonds run to expiration and need not secure new bonds. However, no new bonds should be accepted from this company, and bonds that are continuous in nature should not be renewed. 

                    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at                     *http://www.fms.treas.gov/​c570.*

Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6F01, Hyattsville, MD 20782. 

Dated: September 12, 2008. 

Vivian L. Cooper, 

Director, Financial Accounting and Services Division.

[FR Doc. E8-22089 Filed 9-22-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

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

Michael Wyatt

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

August 21, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to resolve pending suppression issues and to 

subpoena witnesses for trial. The government consents to a

continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from August 21, 2007 to October 10, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial

Case 1:05-cr-00215-PB Document 164 Filed 08/17/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a hearing on the pending Motion to

Suppress and conduct a final pretrial conference on September 25,

2007 at 9:30 a.m. No further continuances will be granted.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

August 17, 2007

cc: Michael Smith,, Esq.

Donald Feith, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00215-PB Document 164 Filed 08/17/07 Page 2 of 2
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 1, 2014

NO. 03-13-00708-CR

Rose Ann Davidson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND ROSE

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction rendered by the district court. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the district court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the district court’s

judgment of conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication 

of costs is made.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

 v. ) Cr. No. 06-071-SM

 )

ELAINE A. BROWN, and )

EDWARD LEWIS BROWN )

)

Defendants. )

STIPULATION REGARDING ANCILLARY CLAIM

BY THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Counsel for the United States and the State of New Hampshire, through the New

Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, have conferred on April 19, 2007, and stipulate as

follows:

1. The court, in its Preliminary Order of Forfeiture, has granted a Preliminary Order of

Forfeiture which includes a money judgment in the amount of $215,890.47. The United States

has secured its forfeiture interest by notices of lis pendens as follows: 

a) 401 Center of Town Road, Plainfield, New Hampshire, dated May 24, 2006, and

recorded at the Sullivan County Registry of Deeds on May 24, 2006, at Book 1584, Page 359;

and 

b) 27 Glen Road, West Lebanon, New Hampshire, dated May 24, 2006, and recorded at

the Grafton County Registry of Deeds on May 24, 2006, at Book 3283, Page 964.

2. The State of New Hampshire recorded liens as follows:

a) 401 Center of Town Road, Plainfield, New Hampshire, and 27 Glen Road, West

Lebanon, New Hampshire, dated August 28, 2006, and October 5, 2006, and recorded at the

Sullivan County Registry of Deeds on August 31, 2006, at Book 1602, Page 185, and October 5,

Case 1:06-cr-00071-SM Document 168 Filed 04/23/07 Page 1 of 3
2

2006, at the Sullivan County Registry of Deeds at Book 1622, Page 891, respectively, in the total

amount of $348,235.32.

3. The State of New Hampshire and the United States agree that the United States is in

first position with respect to collecting its money judgment from 401 Center of Town Road,

Plainfield, New Hampshire, and 27 Glen Road, West Lebanon, New Hampshire, and the State of

New Hampshire’s tax lien is in second position. 

Respectfully submitted,

THOMAS P. COLANTUONO

United States Attorney

Dated: April 23, 2007 By:/s/ Robert J. Rabuck

Robert J. Rabuck

Assistant U.S. Attorney

 N.H. Bar No. 2087

United States Attorney’s Office

53 Pleasant Street

Concord, NH 03301

(603) 225-1552

rob.rabuck@usdoj.gov

Dated: April 20, 2007 By:/s/ Glenn A. Perlow

Glenn A. Perlow, Assistant Attorney General

N.H. Bar No. 13085

Office of the Attorney General

Civil Bureau

33 Capitol Street

Concord, NH 03301-6397

(603) 271-3650

glenn.perlow@doj.nh.gov

Case 1:06-cr-00071-SM Document 168 Filed 04/23/07 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of April, 2007, the foregoing Stipulation Regarding

Ancillary Claim By The State of New Hampshire was served electronically through ECF to

Glenn Perlow, Assistant Attorney General. I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of April, 2007, a

copy of the foregoing Stipulation Regarding Ancillary Claim By The State of New Hampshire

was mailed postage prepaid to Elaine A. Brown, 401 Center of Town Road, Plainfield, NH

03781, and Edward L. Brown, 401 Center of Town Road, Plainfield, NH 03781.

/s/ Robert J. Rabuck

Robert J. Rabuck

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

Case 1:06-cr-00071-SM Document 168 Filed 04/23/07 Page 3 of 3
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Office of Personnel Management

# AGENCY:

Office of Personnel Management. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

                        In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review of a revised information collection. RI 94-7, Death                               ( print page 1900)                            Benefit Payment Rollover Election for Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), provides FERS surviving spouses and former spouses with the means to elect payment of FERS rollover-eligible benefits directly or to an Individual Retirement Arrangement.                     

Approximately 3,444 RI 94-7 forms will be completed annually. The form takes approximately 60 minutes to complete. The annual burden is 3,444 hours. 

                        For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606-8358, FAX (202) 418-3251 or via E-mail to                         *MaryBeth.Smith-Toomey@opm.gov.*                         Please include a mailing address with your request.                     

# DATES:

Comments on this proposal should be received within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. 

# ADDRESSES:

Send or deliver comments to— 

Ronald W. Melton, Deputy Assistant Director Retirement Services Program, Center for Retirement and Insurance Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3305, Washington, DC 20415-3500 and Brenda Aguilar, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. 

For Information Regarding Administrative Coordination— 

Contact: Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, RIS Support Services/Support Group, (202) 606-0623. 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

Howard Weizmann, 

Deputy Director.

 [FR Doc. E8-215 Filed 1-9-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325-38-P
#### LAYNE v. LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. et al.

No. 4970.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Dec. 23, 1935.

Warren Hunt, of Rayville, for appellant.

Hudson, Potts & Bernstein, of Monroe, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in his original petition prayed for judgment “in the full sum of thirty thousand ($30,000.00) dollars, with interest at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum until paid.” As the judgment of the trial court rejected plaintiff’s demands, it was necessarily silent on the subject of interest. Our original judgment *on appeal,*reversing that of the lower court, was also silent as to interest.

Plaintiff’s application for a rehearing set out that the court had erred in failing to allow legal interest from judicial demand. A rehearing was granted, and, after rear-gument and submission, we reinstated our former decree and judgment without making any reference to interest.

Plaintiff now prays that the judgment be corrected so as to specifically allow the interest demanded.

Act No. 206 of 1916 provides:

> “That legal interest shall, hereafter, attach from date of judicial demand, on all judgments, sounding in damages, 'ex de-licto,’ which may be rendered by any of the courts in the State.”

In the case of Caldwell v. City of Shreveport, 150 La. 465, 90 So. 763, 764, referring to this act, it is held that:

> “The recovery of legal interest on the judgment from the date of judicial demand is therefore a matter of absolute right.”

In a case wherein interest was allowed from the date of judgment, instead of in accordance with the act and holding in the Caldwell Case, we said:

> “Under the above-cited act and decision, there can be no controversy over the question as to whether the appellee is entitled to interest from judicial demand, and, for 'that reason, it is not necessary that we grant a rehearing in order to amend our decree in that respect.”

Webb v. Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry. Co., 10 La.App. 278, 119 So. 720, 721.

In the case of Webb v. Lambert, 14 La.App. 147, 128 So. 317, 129 So. 200, where as in the present case the judgment on appeal, reversing that of the lower court in favor of defendant, was silent on the question of interest, it was held:

> “We are asked to amend our decree so as to allow interest from judicial demand. In view of the phraseology of Act Nd. 206 of 1916, the amendment asked for is unnecessary.”

In Grennon v. New Orleans Public Service, 17 La.App. 700, 136 So. 309, 311, where the identical question presented here is fully discussed, the court said:

> “Interest need not be prayed for or mentioned in the judgment to entitle a successful litigant in an action ex delicto to claim it.”

To the’ same effect is Poulan v. Gallagher (La.App.) 148 So. 511.

While it is apparent from the above decisions that the judgment in this case carries interest from judicial demand, in order to prevent any confusion, it is now amended so as to allow legal interest from judicial demand, until paid.
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                 CORRECTED RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                           FOX FAMILY WORLDWIDE, INC.

     Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and
by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,

     DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

     FIRST: That by unanimous written consent the Board of Directors of Fox
Family Worldwide, Inc. (the "Corporation"), resolutions were duly adopted
setting forth a proposed amendment of the Corporation's Corrected Restated
Certificate of Incorporation (the "Certificate"), declaring said amendment
appropriate, advisable and in the best interests of the Corporation and calling
for the consideration, approval and consent of the stockholders of the
Corporation. The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:

     "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, subject to obtaining the requisite
     approval from the stockholders of the Corporation, Paragraph A of the
     Fourth Article of the Corporation's Certificate is amended to read in full
     as follows:

          `FOURTH: A. AUTHORIZED CAPITAL STOCK. The Company is authorized to
          issue 20,000,000 shares of capital stock: 18,000,000 shares shall be
          shares of Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share, of which 2,000,000
          shares shall be shares of Class A Common Stock, par value $0.001 per
          share ("Class A Common Stock") and 16,000,000 shares shall be shares
          of Class B Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share ("Class B Common
          Stock" and, together with Class A Common Stock, the "Common Stock");
          2,000,000 shares shall be shares of Preferred Stock, par value $0.001
          per share ("Preferred Stock"), of which 500,000 shares shall be shares
          of Series A Preferred Stock, par value $0.001 per share ("Series A
          Preferred Stock").'"

     SECOND: That thereafter, acting by written consent pursuant to Section 228
of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, the necessary number of
shares as required by statute approved the amendment.

     THIRD: That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the
provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be
signed by Haim Saban, its Chief Executive Officer, as of the 30th day of June
1998.

                                           Fox Family Worldwide, Inc.

                                           By:     /S/ HAIM SABAN
                                               ----------------------------
                                                    Haim Saban
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cv-354-PB

General Electric Company

AMENDED JUDGMENT

In accordance with the following, judgment is hereby entered:

Bench Ruling rendered on November 10, 2008 by Judge Paul Barbadoro finding that GE

did otherwise arrange for the disposal of the scrap Pyranol when it entered into its relationship

with Mr. Fletcher; the Stipulation and Order as to the Removal Action Costs dated July 9, 2010;

the Stipulation, Order and Declaratory Judgment (Removal Action Costs are Not Time-Barred)

signed by the Parties on July 2, 2010; and the Order dated December 3, 2010 by Judge Paul

Barbadoro granting plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

By the Court,

/S/ James R. Starr 

James R. Starr, Clerk

December 14, 2010

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:06-cv-00354-PB Document 163 Filed 12/14/10 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Tammy Koehler

v. Civil No. 05-cv-208-SM

Curran Management Services, Inc.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

In reviewing the record to determine whether these cases

should be consolidated, it appeared to the court that removal may

have been improper as untimely. The removal statute, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1441(a) is generally construed against removal, with doubt

being resolved in favor of remand. See City of Chicago v.

International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997); Chicago,

R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Stude, 346 U.S. 574, 578-579 (1954).

It appears that these cases were first removed by defendant

from the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights, before which

an administrative proceeding was ongoing, to the New Hampshire

Superior Court. See N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. ch. 354-A:21-a. 

Defendant then removed the pending state civil action to this

court. Removal of the administrative action to the state

Case 1:05-cv-00208-SM Document 10 Filed 08/05/05 Page 1 of 3
1 The notice of removal to this court invokes diversity

jurisdiction and does not mention federal question jurisdiction -

even though the removed case purportedly raises Title VII

discrimination claims as well. In that regard, the record does

not disclose whether a right-to-sue letter has been issued to the

plaintiffs. An issue may arise with regard to a diverse

defendant’s ability to remove an unexhausted Title VII claim from

a state agency to federal district court, via a state court,

pursuant to a state administrative removal statute.

2

superior court occurred, it would seem, on either May 2, 2005

(when notice of removal was filed with the administrative agency)

or May 5, 2005, when an initial pleading was filed in the New

Hampshire Superior Court confirming the administrative removal

and disclosing a basis for federal removability.1 The notice of

removal to this court was filed on June 9, 2005, more than thirty

days after filing of the initial pleading removing the case to

state court, which pleading set forth the nature of the claims

and disclosed the suit’s removable character. This is a somewhat

odd situation in that defendant filed the initial pleading that

disclosed removability, but there does not seem to be any reason

why the thirty day removal period should not begin to run from

that event. (Whether the Title VII claim has been successfully

removed raises different complex issues.)

Case 1:05-cv-00208-SM Document 10 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 3
3

Within thirty (30) days of the date hereof, the parties

shall show cause why this case should not be remanded to state

court based upon improper removal.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

August 5, 2005

cc: H. Jonathan Meyer, Esq.

Douglas A. Troyer, Esq.

Thomas O. Moriarty, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00208-SM Document 10 Filed 08/05/05 Page 3 of 3