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

###### Overseas Private Investment Corporation

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Information on the hearing cancellation may be obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336-8438, via facsimile at (202) 218-0136, or via e-mail at                         *Connie.Downs@opic.gov.*

Dated: September 12, 2008. 

Connie M. Downs, 

OPIC Corporate Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-21732 Filed 9-12-08; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3210-01-P
Case 1:05-cv-00184-PB Document 1 Filed 05/24/05 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:05-cv-00184-PB Document 1 Filed 05/24/05 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

John Peterson

V .

U .S . Social SecuritV Administration,

Commissioner

No . 06-fp-29 2

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-292-JD .

SO ORDERED .

R . Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judg e

Date : August 8, 200 6

cc : Raymond J . Kelly, Esq .

Case 1:06-cv-00292-JD Document 3 Filed 08/08/06 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMY JACOBY,

Defendant.

8:23CR126

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial (Filing No. 93). 

The parties need additional time to resolve the matter. For good cause shown, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial (Filing No. 93) is granted 

as follows:

1. The jury trial now set for October 28, 2024, is continued to November 18, 2024.

2. 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 defendant 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 November 

18, 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).

3. No further continuances will be granted.

Dated this 25th day of October 2024.

BY THE COURT:

Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.

Chief United States District Judge

8:23-cr-00126-RFR-MDN Doc # 94 Filed: 10/25/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 151
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

DAISY FRANCO,

Defendant.

8:23MJ279

ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE

DUE PROCESS PROTECTION ACT

This matter came before the Court for Initial Appearance on a Complaint. The government 

was represented by Mikala Purdy-Steenholdt. The defendant was present and represented by

Justin D. Eichmann. 

IT IS ORDERED:

Pursuant to the Due Process Protections Act, the Court confirms the United States' 

obligation to disclose to the defendant all exculpatory evidence as required by Brady v. Maryland, 

373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, and orders the United States to do so. Failure to disclose 

exculpatory evidence in a timely manner may result in consequences, including, but not limited 

to, exclusion of evidence, adverse jury instructions, dismissal of charges, contempt proceedings, 

or sanctions by the Court.

DATED: May 12, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-mj-00279-MDN Doc # 18 Filed: 05/12/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 26
(173 La. 800)

#### Arthur MITCHELL et al. v. Willie ILER.

No. 30200.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 30, 1931.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1932.

C. A. Buchler and L. H. Gosserand, both of Gretna, for appellants.

John E. Fleury, of New Orleans, for appel-lee.

ST. PAUL, J.

Plaintiffs sold their property to the defendant, and now they bring this suit to have the sale set aside and declared only a mortgage for the purchase price.

Of course they charge fraud, because otherwise parol evidence would not have been admissible to vary the terms of the deed. Waller v. Dawson,, 162 La. 804, 111 So. 170. But they have not proved it, and we believe, as the district judge did, that plaintiffs knew quite well that they were selling their property and not mortgaging it.

The judgment appears to us correct.

Decree.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,296,589
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,542,889
<ALLOWANCES>                                   781,412
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,182,221
<PP&E>                                         314,498
<DEPRECIATION>                                  59,286
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,437,433
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,249,507
<BONDS>                                         25,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           310
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,162,616
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,437,433
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               962,241
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,443,416
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,826
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (501,001)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (505,001)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (505,001)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joshua M . Colbath

V .

Lakes Region FacilitV, Warden

No . 06-fp-35 0

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-350-SM .

SO ORDERED .

Date : September 19, 2006

ambvs R . Muirhead

ed States Magistrate Judge

cc : Joshua M . Colbath, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00350-SM Document 3 Filed 09/19/06 Page 1 of 1
### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MCKESSON CORP. etal., Plaintiffs,


### v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OFIRAN etal., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### Civ. Action No. 82-220 (RJL)

# ~RDER (Marchz2.2013) [Dkts. ##960, 961, 969]
Forthe reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion enteredthis date, it is this

## ~

## ~day ofMarch, 2013, hereby 

### ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion for Entry ofFinal Judgment [Dkts. ##961, 969] is 

### GRANTED in part and 

### DENIED in part; and it is further 

### ORDERED thatjudgmentbe entered in favor ofthe plaintiffs and against the defendants in the amount of$40,551,000.40; and it is further 

### ORDERED that plaintiffs are entitled to seek additional fees and costs incurred after June 30, 2012 and until the conclusion ofthis litigation and are hereby authorized to submit a further application for such fees and costs consistent with this Judgment; and it is furtherORDERED that in accordance with U.S.C. § 1961, post-judgment interest shall accrue on all amounts awarded to plaintiffs pursuant to this Judgment as ofthe date hereof; and it is further ORDERED that defendants' July 30, 2012 motion [Dkt. #960] is DENIED as MOOT. SO ORDERED.
CHARDJ.L**0~** United States District Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMM COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          10,368
<SECURITIES>                                    16,269
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,204
<ALLOWANCES>                                       690
<INVENTORY>                                        112
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,951
<PP&E>                                          10,025
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,526
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  59,097
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,324
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,764
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    59,097
<SALES>                                         25,564
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,564
<CGS>                                            4,395
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,395
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,497
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   136
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  17
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,059
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,071
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,988
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,988
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Hypertherm, Inc.

v. Civil No. 05-cv-373-JD

American Torch Tip Company

Procedural Order

In preparation for trial, the court has reviewed the docket

in this case. There are four motions for summary judgment

pending, the resolution of which may substantially change the

issues for trial. ATTC has moved to exclude evidence of convoyed

sales and has filed four motions in limine on evidentiary issues. 

Hypertherm has filed a “Daubert” motion to preclude ATTC from

offering the testimony of its expert witness, James Sprague, on

issues of infringement and patent validity. Hypertherm also

filed a motion for leave to file updated damages calculations. 

In addition, Hypertherm has filed nine motions in limine. All of

the matters raised in the pending motions are disputed.

The Daubert motion, filed only three and half weeks ago,

raises serious and complex questions about whether James Sprague

is qualified to testify as an expert witness on issues of patent

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 458 Filed 01/29/09 Page 1 of 3
2

infringement and validity in this case. ATTC moved to seal its

response, which motion has been granted, and the court is

awaiting the filing of the unredacted version. Hypertherm has

indicated that it intends to seek leave to file a reply. It is

likely that a hearing will be necessary to properly evaluate the

motion and the qualification issues. The parties’ trial

preparation will be affected by the result.

Therefore, the trial of the infringement claims and

defenses, which is scheduled for the trial period beginning on

February 18, 2009, must necessarily be rescheduled to provide

time to resolve the pending matters. At present, the trial

period beginning on April 21, 2009, is open and available as a

time to reschedule this trial. The court proposes that the trial

be rescheduled for that time.

The court will meet with counsel on February 3, 2009, as

scheduled to discuss scheduling and other matters. Attached to

this order is a “Proposed Procedural Order,” which counsel should 

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 458 Filed 01/29/09 Page 2 of 3
3

review and be prepared to discuss with the court at the

conference on February 3.

 SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

January 29, 2009

Attachment

cc: Jill C. Anderson, Esquire

Jacob K. Baron, Esquire

Steven M. Bauer, Esquire

Lucas M. Blower, Esquire

Colin G. Cabral, Esquire

Seth M. Cannon, Esquire

Joseph A. Capraro, Jr., Esquire

Christopher J. Carney, Esquire

Jeffery M. Cross, Esquire

Joseph T. Dattilo, Esquire

Maia H. Harris, Esquire

Marc H. Kallish, Esquire

Rhett R. Krulla, Esquire

Jonathan A. Lax, Esquire

Edward F. McCormack, Esquire

Richard C. Nelson, Esquire

W. Scott O'Connell, Esquire

Jeremy P. Oczek, Esquire

Richard D. Rochford, Jr., Esquire

David W. Ruoff, Esquire

John T. Shapiro, Esquire

John M. Skeriotis, Esquire

Benjamin M. Stern, Esquire

Wayne Tang, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 458 Filed 01/29/09 Page 3 of 3
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

JORDON LOPEZ-CAMACHO, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0910 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2007-176667-002

The Honorable Joseph C. Welty, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Jordon Lopez-Camacho, Buckeye

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge 

Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 12-12-2017
STATE v. LOPEZ-CAMACHO

Decision of the Court

2

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Jordon Lopez-Camacho seeks review of the 

superior court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed 

pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner's 

fifth petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner's burden to 

show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) 

(petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court's order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1442

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified credit

against estate and gift taxes to the equivalent of a $5,000,000 exclusion

and to provide an inflation adjustment of such amount.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

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

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase

the unified credit against estate and gift taxes to the

equivalent of a $5,000,000 exclusion and to provide an

inflation adjustment of such amount.

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

3 SECTION 1. UNIFIED CREDIT INCREASED TO EQUIVALENT

4 OF $5,000,000 EXCLUSION; INFLATION ADJUST5 MENT OF UNIFIED CREDIT.

6 (a) INCREASE IN UNIFIED CREDIT.—

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section

8 2010 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
2

•HR 1442 IH

1 to applicable credit amount) is amended by striking

2 all that follows ‘‘were the applicable exclusion

3 amount’’ and inserting ‘‘. For purposes of the pre4 ceding sentence, the applicable exclusion amount is

5 $5,000,000.’’

6 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subparagraph

7 (A) of section 2057(a)(3) of such Code is amended

8 by striking ‘‘$625,000’’ and inserting ‘‘the excess of

9 the applicable exclusion amount (determined without

10 regard to this paragraph) over $675,000’’.

11 (b) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—Section 2010 of such

12 Code is amended by redesignating subsection (d) as sub13 section (e) and by inserting after subsection (c) the fol14 lowing new subsection:

15 ‘‘(d) COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT.—In the case of

16 any decedent dying, and gift made, in a calendar year

17 after 2001, the $5,000,000 amount set forth in subsection

18 (c) shall be increased by an amount equal to—

19 ‘‘(1) $5,000,000, multiplied by

20 ‘‘(2) the cost-of-living adjustment determined

21 under section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by sub22 stituting ‘calendar year 2000’ for ‘calendar year

23 1992’ in subparagraph (B) thereof.
3

•HR 1442 IH

1 If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence

2 is not a multiple of $10,000, such amount shall be round3 ed to the nearest multiple of $10,000.’’

4 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

5 this section shall apply to estates of decedents dying, and

6 gifts made, after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

________________________________ 

 * 

Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc., *

Plaintiff *

 * 

v. * Civil Action No. 06-cv-100-JD 

 * 

HemCon, Inc. *

Defendant *

________________________________ * 

AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL

 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 3(a)(1) and 4(a)(1)(A), that 

Defendant HemCon, Inc. hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit from the Court Order granting Motion for Permanent Injunction and Permanent 

Injunction Order entered in this action on September 16, 2010 (Docket # 438 and 439) and the 

Final Judgment entered in this action on September 23, 2010 (Docket # 446). 

Date: September 24, 2010 

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 

By: /s/ Raymond Kurz 

Raymond A. Kurz (admitted pro hac vice) 

Celine Crowson (admitted pro hac vice) 

Rebekah L. Osborn (admitted pro hac vice) 

Keith B. O’Doherty (admitted pro hac vice) 

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 

555 Thirteenth Street, NW 

Washington DC 20004 

Telephone: (202) 637-5600 

 

LOCAL COUNSEL 

By: /s/ Elizabeth Maher Leonard

Elizabeth M. Leonard (NH Bar No. 11314)

WIGGIN & NOURIE, P.A. 

670 North Commercial Street, Suite 305

P.O. Box 808 

Manchester, NH 03105-0808 

Telephone: (603) 669-2211 

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 448 Filed 09/24/10 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the within Notice of Appeal has been forwarded to all counsel of record 

pursuant to the Court’s rules and procedures concerning electronic filing. Electronically Served 

Through ECF: Daniel E. Will, Esq.

September 24, 2010 /s/ Elizabeth Maher Leonard

 Elizabeth Maher Leonard

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 448 Filed 09/24/10 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00307-JL   Document 51   Filed 06/20/07   Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, William C. Adair, Jr., 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, 2004 (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 8, 2004                By: /s/ William C. Adair, Jr.
----------------------                 -----------------------------------------
        Date                                         (Signature)
                                   Name:  William C. Adair, Jr.
                                   Title: Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
                                          President
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-105-PB

Vincent Chaney

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

trial scheduled for January 5, 2010, citing the need for

additional time to negotiate a plea agreement or prepare for

trial. The government does not object to a continuance of the

trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from January 5, 2010 to February 2, 2010. In

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

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(7) 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 1:06-cr-00105-PB Document 129 Filed 12/21/09 Page 1 of 2
The December 22, 2009 final pretrial conference is continued

to January 20, 2010 at 3:30 p.m. 

No further continuances.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

December 21, 2009

cc: Patrick J. Richard, Esq.

William Morse, Esq.

United States Marshal

United States Probation

2

Case 1:06-cr-00105-PB Document 129 Filed 12/21/09 Page 2 of 2