alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jan Peter FROHM, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security Administration,**713Defendants—Appellees.

No. 01-36007.

D.C. No. CV-00-00711-MJP.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 6, 2003.

Decided March 12, 2003.

Before REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 Jo Anne B. Barnhart is substituted for her predecessor as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Jan Peter Frohm appeals from the district court’s affirmance of a decision by an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denying him disability insurance benefits. Because the ALJ reached his conclusion by applying a standard regarding subjective complaints of pain wholly at odds with Ninth Circuit precedent of which he was aware, and because the ALJ further made his credibility determinations by applying an equally inappropriate legal standard, we vacate and remand for a new hearing before a different ALJ.

Frohm’s claim rests upon objective medical evidence showing severe back impairments and subjective complaints of pain that, he asserts, resulted from those impairments and was so severe as to render him unable to work. Under our cases, a claimant such as Frohm must “produce medical evidence of an underlying impairment which is reasonably likely to be the cause of the alleged pain.” *Bunnell v. Sullivan,*947 F.2d 341, 343 (9th Cir.1991) (en banc). He need not, however, produce objective “medical findings that support the *severity*of pain.” *Id.*The lack of such findings do not constitute a sufficient basis for rejecting a claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of his pain or his claim that his pain is disabling. *Id.*

In contradiction to this rule, the ALJ stated that the “purpose of subjective testimonial evidence would logically appear to be to aid the adjudicator in the resolution of close questions.” Subjective evidence, he believed, merely “contribute[s] to the resolution of ambiguities in the evidence, which is the province of the Commissioner”; it is “not controlling on the issue of disability.”

Similarly, the ALJ assessed credibility as to subjective matters on the basis of a misapprehension that a sincere belief as to one’s subjective feelings (of pain, for example) is not sufficient to make a claimant’s testimony as to such subjective feelings credible. This assessment confuses the objective and subjective elements involved in pain cases and taints the entire disability determination in this case.

Given the pervasive nature of the errors by the ALJ, we not only vacate the order denying benefits but remand to the district judge with instructions that further proceedings be held before a different ALJ. Upon remand to the Commissioner, Frohm will be free to supplement the record with additional medical reports or such other evidence as may be appropriate, or he may *714elect to have an entirely new hearing conducted.

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

**

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT 9/30/95 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE 9 MONTHS ENDED 9/30/95 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           6,341
<SECURITIES>                                     7,785
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,511
<ALLOWANCES>                                       679
<INVENTORY>                                      8,332
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,040
<PP&E>                                          18,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,303
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,301
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,669
<BONDS>                                            849
<COMMON>                                            35
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,238
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    42,301
<SALES>                                         37,522
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,522
<CGS>                                           27,452
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,452
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 208
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,906
<INCOME-TAX>                                         8
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,821
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,100
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,921
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.23
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Stephanie B. Barrett, et al

v. Civil No. 06-cv-240-SM

Ambient Pressure Diving, Ltd.

ORDER

Re: Document No. 126, Assented to Motion for Leave to File

Revised Discovery Plan and for Status Conference with Judge

McAuliffe

Ruling: 

Granted, in part. The parties may file an agreed-upon proposed

amended pretrial scheduling order, or separate motions to amend

the currently applicable order. Otherwise, the motion is denied. 

 The assented-to motion seems to contemplate a "work session" in

which the parties and presiding judge will informally discuss and

resolve substantive issues (choice of law, claims of privilege,

etc.) and discovery matters (clarification of rulings regarding

discovery; "location/timing/duration of deposition of Ambient,"

etc.). Certainly, the parties are free to mediate their

differences, or to file appropriate pleadings designed to

identify the legal issues in dispute and the applicable law in

support of their respective positions. But the court does not

generally rule on substantive legal disputes or discovery

disputes based upon informal and off-the-cuff "working sessions"

with counsel. Counsel are obligated to act in good faith and

professionally in arranging depositions, producing discoverable

material, scheduling, and managing the litigation under the

applicable rules of procedure and the orders of this court. The

proposed agenda is striking in that it addresses matters that

ought to be easily resolved by counsel, or legal issues that

will require briefing, and, in some cases, perhaps evidentiary

hearings. The Rules of Civil Procedure do not contemplate an

arbitration-like procedure before the presiding judge, but the

parties are obviously free to agree to binding arbitration under

any terms they choose. While the case is in litigation, it is

Case 1:06-cv-00240-SM Document 128 Filed 02/25/08 Page 1 of 2
best handled as a litigation matter. Counsel ought to be

cooperating with one another, but if they will not, there are

means available to move the litigation forward without that

cooperation. 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

Date: February 25, 2008

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:06-cv-00240-SM Document 128 Filed 02/25/08 Page 2 of 2
SCWC-18-0000715

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

STATE OF HAWAII,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

STEVEN DUDLEY VEGA,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-18-0000715; CR. NO. 3CPC-18-0000409)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ.,

and Circuit Judge Ochiai, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee’s Application for Writ 

of Certiorari, filed on September 30, 2020, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, November 12, 2020.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Dean E. Ochiai

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-18-0000715

12-NOV-2020

12:39 PM

Dkt. 31 ODAC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 06-cr-169-01-SM

Cotisha Blake

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 8 is granted. Trial

has been rescheduled for the February 2007 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver of

Speedy Trial Rights not later than November 1, 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-00169-SM Document 9 Filed 10/24/06 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: January 29, 2007 at 4:30 PM

Jury Selection: February 6, 2007 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

October 24, 2006 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Helen Fitzgibbon, Esq.

 Jonathan Saxe, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00169-SM Document 9 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1511

To amend title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the requirement that

covered beneficiaries under chapter 55 of such title obtain a nonavailability-of-health-care statement with respect to obstetrics and gynecological care related to a pregnancy.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. RYUN of Kansas (for himself, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. SHOWS, Mr.

GIBBONS, and Mr. TIAHRT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the

requirement that covered beneficiaries under chapter 55

of such title obtain a nonavailability-of-health-care statement with respect to obstetrics and gynecological care

related to a pregnancy.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1511 IH

1 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN

2 NONAVAILABILITY-OF-HEALTH-CARE STATE3 MENT IN CASES OF PREGNANCY.

4 (a) ELIMINATION OF REQUIREMENT.—Chapter 55 of

5 title 10, United States Code, is amended in section

6 1080(b) by striking the second sentence.

7 (b) EXPANSION OF NONAVAILABILITY STATEMENT

8 WAIVER AUTHORITY.—Section 721 of the Floyd D.

9 Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

10 Year 2001 (as enacted by Public Law 106–398) is

11 amended—

12 (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘, or in the

13 case of obstetrics and gynecological care related to

14 the pregnancy of a covered beneficiary using

15 TRICARE Extra,’’ after ‘‘TRICARE Standard’’;

16 and

17 (2) in subsection (c)—

18 (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1)

19 through (3) as subparagraphs (A) through (C),

20 respectively;

21 (B) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(c) EXCEP22 TIONS.—’’; and

23 (C) by adding at the end the following new

24 paragraph:
3

•HR 1511 IH

1 ‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the case of ob2 stetrics and gynecological care related to the pregnancy

3 of a covered beneficiary.’’.

Æ
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT j

In Case No. 2006- 0751 , Christine C. Eng Khabbaz & a. v.

Commissioner of Social Security, the court on November 30,

2006, issued the following order:

Case is accepted and will be scheduled for oral argument before the full

court.

An original and eight copies of plaintiffs ' brief must be filed on or before

January 2, 2007. An original and eight copies of defendant ' s brief must be filed

on or before February 1, 2007.

NOTE: Your brief must not exceed 35 pages. Sac Rule 16(11). The

appealing party must attach a copy of any decision(s) being

appealed. S.ee Rule 16(3)(i).

An appealing party is responsible for providing the court with the

necessary record to decide the appeal. Failure to do so may result

in dismissal of the appeal. For information about how to provide the

court with the record, review Rule 13 carefully. If you intend to file

an appendix to your brief, review Rule 17.

Broderick, C.J., and Dalianis, Duggan, Galway and Hicks, JJ.,

participated.

Eileen Fox,

Clerk

Distribution:

US District Court for the District of New Hampshire

Honorable Paul Barbadoro

Timothy G. Kerrigan, Esquire

Preeya M. Noronha, Esquire

David L. Broderick, Esquire

File

Case 1:06-cv-00206-PB Document 10 Filed 12/04/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Civil No. 06-cv-203-PB

Judith Putzel and

Stephen M. Price

ORDER OF RECUSAL

Defendant’s counsel is on my recusal list, therefore, I am

recusing myself from presiding over this case.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

August 21, 2007

cc: Wilbur A. Glahn, III, Esq.

Wendy J. Kisch, Esq.

Judith Putzel, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00203-DBH Document 11 Filed 08/21/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Randal Fritz

v. Case No. 06-cv-469-PB

 

Kenneth Brown and Kathryn Daly

O R D E R

Defendants seek permission to file an interlocutory appeal 

challenging my ruling that they are not entitled to summary

judgment with respect to their Mt. Healthy defense. Although I

welcome any guidance that the Court of Appeals may wish to

provide with respect to this issue, I cannot grant the motion

because the issue does not present “one or more difficult and

pivotal questions of law not settled by controlling authority.”

Caraballo-Seda v. Municipality of Hormigueros, 395 F.3d 7, 8 (1st

Cir. 2005)(quoting Palandjian v. Pahlavi, 782 F.2d 313, 314 (1st

Cir. 1986)). 

Defendants’ motion for order certifying a question for

interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (Doc. No. 109) is

denied.

Case 1:06-cv-00469-PB Document 118 Filed 08/28/09 Page 1 of 2
-2-

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

August 27, 2009

cc: Pierre Rumpf, Esq.

Paula Werme, Esq.

Nancy J. Smith, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00469-PB Document 118 Filed 08/28/09 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32

Certification Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350

For the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certify that, to their knowledge:

1.

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Eagle Broadband, Inc. for the three-month period ended May 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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 operations of Eagle Broadband, Inc.



Date: July 23, 2007



| |     |                                      
| | --- | -------------------------------------
| |     |                                      
| | By: | /s/ DAVID MICEK                      
| |     | David Micek                          
| |     | President and Chief Executive Officer
| |     |                                      





| |     |                                            
| | --- | -------------------------------------------
| |     |                                            
| | By: | /s/ MARK MANN                              
| |     | Mark Mann                                  
| |     | Controller and Principal Accounting Officer
| |     |
200 La. 58

#### STATE of Louisiana v. MISSISSIPPI RIVER FUEL CORPORATION.

No. 36286.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 30, 1942.

Eugene Stanley, Atty. Gen., Cicero C. Sessions, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., John B. Smullin, of Baton Rouge, and Travis Oliver, Jr., of Monroe, for plaintiff and appellant.

Shotwell & Brown, of Monroe, for defendant and appellee.

FOURNET, Justice.

This case presents the identical issues disposed of in the case of State of Louisiana v. Interstate Natural Gas Co., Inc., La. Sup., *7*So.2d 612, handed down this day, and for the reasons therein assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

ALEXANDER W. HARLAN, 

Defendant. 

8:23CR125 

ORDER 

 

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Deadline 

for Filing Pretrial Motions. (Filing No. 15). For good cause shown, the Court finds the motion 

should be granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1) Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Deadline for Filing Pretrial Motions, 

(Filing No. 15), is granted. 

2) Pretrial motions shall be filed by September 8, 2023. 

3) 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 motion 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 and September 

8, 2023, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the 

requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant this motion would deny 

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

the exercise of due diligence, and the novelty and complexity of the case. The 

failure to grant this motion might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 

3161(h)(7)(A) & (B). Failing to timely object to this order as provided under this 

court’s local rules will be deemed a waiver of any right to later claim the time 

should not have been excluded under the Speedy Trial Act. 

 Dated this 25th day of July, 2023. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Susan M. Bazis 

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00125-RFR-SMB Doc # 16 Filed: 07/25/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 29
TRIcT OF

NNMN4MP

HI

APR 2^3 2007

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

MACTEC Engineering

& Consulting, Inc.

v. Civil No. 06-cv-466-JD

OneBeacon Insurance Companv

O R D E R

OneBeacon Insurance Company asks the court to reconsider

that part of the order, issued on March 21, 2007, denying MACTEC

Engineering & Consulting, Inc.'s, motion to dismiss, in which the

court concluded that New Hampshire law would govern substantive

issues in this case. OneBeacon contends that Massachusetts law

should apply. MACTEC opposes the motion for reconsideration.

In the previous order, the court noted that the parties

questioned whether New Hampshire or Massachusetts law governed.

The court also noted that if the parties fail to show that the

laws of the potentially interested states conflict, no choice of

law analysis is required, and the court applies the law of the

forum state. Order at 2. Because the parties failed to show a

conflict between the law of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, the

court concluded that New Hampshire law would govern.

OneBeacon argues that Massachusetts law should apply and

that it did not intend, previously, "to infer [sic] to the Court

Case 1:06-cv-00466-JD Document 28 Filed 04/23/07 Page 1 of 3
that the laws of the two states were identical regarding all

aspects of interpreting an insurance policy." Motion at 2.

OneBeacon argues that New Hampshire's choice of law rules would

favor applying Massachusetts law in this case. Although

OneBeacon cites a Massachusetts case that provides a rule

pertaining to the duty to defend and indemnify, OneBeacon does

not show or even suggest that New Hampshire law conflicts with

the Massachusetts rule on that issue or any other issue material

to this case.

"The district court has 'plenary authority' to reconsider

its own rulings if it believes it has erred, and to grant a

motion it had previously denied." DeNovellis v. Shalala , 135

F.3d 58, 70 (1st Cir. 1998). OneBeacon has not shown any basis

for the court to reconsider its prior ruling.

2

Case 1:06-cv-00466-JD Document 28 Filed 04/23/07 Page 2 of 3
Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons , the defendant's motion for

reconsideration (document no. 26) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

Apr il a3 , 2007

cc: Jeffrey T. Edwards, Esquire

Peter

Daniel

Joshua

G.

P.

E.

Hermes,

Luker,

Menard,

Esquire

Esquire

Esquire

Roy T. Pierce, Esquire

L11 11. Q L1 . 0 U111 V Q11, L.54 U 11 C

United States District Ju

sepIl A. DiClerico, Jr.

3

Case 1:06-cv-00466-JD Document 28 Filed 04/23/07 Page 3 of 3
Order entered February 15, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01181-CV

JAMES H. GENTRY, Appellant

V.

BENJAMIN N. SMITH, Appellee

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 199-03888-2018

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s February 13, 2019 motion for a paper copy of the clerk’s 

record. Although appellant has previously been provided a copy of the eighty-eight-page record 

and has acknowledged receipt, we GRANT the motion. We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to 

send a paper copy of the clerk’s record to appellant. Appellant’s reply brief remains due March 

15, 2019.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 23, 2015

s1216 

# Order

Clerk December 23, 2015

150695

In re APPLICATION OF MICHI GAN ELECTRIC

TRANSMISSION COMPANY FOR

TRANSMISSION LINE

_________________________________________

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF OSHTEMO,

Appellant,

v SC: 150695

COA: 317893

MPSC No.: 00

- 017041

MICHIGAN ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION

COMPANY LLC,

Petitioner

- Appellee,

and

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 18, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall

include among the issues to be briefed whether the Electric Transmission Line

Certificati on Act, 1995 PA 30, effective May 17, 1995, is consistent with the first

sentence of Const 1963, art 7, § 29.