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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

MATTHEW TIMOTHY,

Defendant.

4:23CR3059

ORDER

Defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (Filing 

No.15), because Defendant and defense counsel need additional time to fully 

review the discovery. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the 

showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1) Defendant’s motion to continue, (Filing No. 15), is granted.

2) Pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before August 1, 2023.

3) The conference call previously scheduled to be held on July 5, 2023, 

is continued. A telephonic conference with counsel will be held 

before the undersigned magistrate judge at 8:45 a.m. on August 8, 

2023 to discuss setting any pretrial motion hearing needed, a 

change of plea hearing, or the date of the jury trial and deadlines for 

disclosing experts as required under Rule 16. Counsel for all parties 

shall use the conferencing instructions provided by the court to 

participate in the call.

4) The ends of justice served by granting the motion to continue 

outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy 

trial, and as to all defendants, the additional time arising as a result 

of the granting of the motion, the time between today’s date and 

August 8, 2023 shall be deemed excludable time in any computation 

4:23-cr-03059-JMG-CRZ Doc # 16 Filed: 06/28/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 27
of time under the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because 

although counsel have been duly diligent, additional time is needed 

to adequately prepare this case for trial and failing to grant additional 

time might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1) 

& (h)(7). 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 28th day of June, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cr-03059-JMG-CRZ Doc # 16 Filed: 06/28/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 28
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2828

ELITE CHILD, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusSCHRODER CHESAPEAKE, INCORPORATED, t/a Greenbrier Mall; E. PRESTON GRISSOM, Individually and in his capacity of Judge, Judicial Circuit of Virginia, Circuit Court of the City of Chesapeake, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-488-2) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 24, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luther C. Edmonds, LUTHER C. EDMONDS, ESQUIRE, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, Gregory E. Lucyk, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mary E. Shea, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Alan B. Rashkind, FURNISS, DAVIS, RASHKIND & SAUNDERS, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief in this action alleging racial discrimination in the termination of alease. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Elite Child, Inc. v. Schroder Chesapeake, Inc. , No. CA-98-488-2 (E.D. Va. Nov. 10, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Robert Breest,

Petitioner

v. Civil No. 77-cv-45-SM

NH State Prison Warden,

Respondent

O R D E R

Defendant seeks to challenge his state conviction for first

degree murder, a conviction that is now over thirty-three years

old. He has filed a pleading styled as a “Motion for Relief from

Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4);

The Judgment is Void.” In that pleading he raises legal issues

raised in an earlier petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, although he now adds a contemporary twist -

he says the state sentencing judge’s finding that his crime

qualified, under state law, as a psycho-sexual murder, violated

his right to a jury trial on that issue. See Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

Ordinarily, a Rule 60(b) motion challenging the

constitutionality of the petitioner’s underlying conviction

should be treated as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Rodwell v. Pepe, 324 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2003). Here, the motion

Case 1:77-cv-00045-SM Document 22 Filed 05/30/06 Page 1 of 3
2

must also be construed as a second or successive petition, since

he previously filed a federal habeas petition challenging this

same conviction, on similar grounds. As such, petitioner must

first “move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order

authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); United States v. Barrett, 178 F.3d 34

(1st Cir. 1999).

Although the petition could be transferred to the United

States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for its

consideration, 28 U.S.C. § 1631, transfer is not mandated. 

Because petitioner has raised identical issues previously, and

the Court of Appeals has already resolved them, and because the

Court of Appeals has also held that Apprendi does not apply

retroactively, thus precluding the new ground raised by

petitioner, the motion will be denied and petitioner can decide

whether or not to seek the required authorization from the Court

of Appeals to pursue a second or successive petition challenging

this conviction.

The motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) (document no. 17) is construed as a

Case 1:77-cv-00045-SM Document 22 Filed 05/30/06 Page 2 of 3
3

second or successive petition for habeas corpus relief (28 U.S.C.

§ 2254), is hereby denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

May 30, 2006

cc: Robert Breest, pro se

Neals-Erik W. Delker, Esq.

Case 1:77-cv-00045-SM Document 22 Filed 05/30/06 Page 3 of 3
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, J. Todd Hagely, hereby certify that the QuarterlyReport of Direct General Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in that Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Direct General Corporation.     August 8, 2006 Date By: /s/ J. Todd Hagely (Signature)  Name:Title: J. Todd Hagely Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 
23
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

IN RE: RICHARD W. N EILL, STEPHANIE MITCHKO, PETER CARAM ANICA, CSC HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellants

______________________

2015

- 1431

______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board

, in No. 12/055, 795.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

R OBERT K ELSEY K RY , MoloLamken LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellants. Also represented by J EFFREY A. L AMKEN ; G ERALD M EYER , Chicago, IL; P AULINE P ELLETIER
, R OBERT E VAN S OKOHL
, J ON W RIGHT
, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC, Washington, DC.

B RIAN R ACILLA
, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office

, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Michelle K. Lee . Also represented by T HOMAS W. K RAUSE
, J EREMIAH H ELM
, L ORE A. U NT

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it isO RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (M OORE
, M AYER
, and W ALLACH
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 9, 2016 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-40855 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. URIEL BLANCO-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:12-CR-289-1
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to r e p r e sent Uriel Blanco-Perez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. C alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United S tates v . F lores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Blanco-Perez has not filed a response. We have reviewed c ounsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with

c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave t o withdraw is GRANTED, U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 16, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-40855 Document: 00512210423 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2013No. 12-40855

counsel is excused from further responsibilities he r e i n, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 12-40855 Document: 00512210423 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2013
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 Defense

###### Department of the Air Force 

# AGENCY:

Department of Air Force, DoD. 

# ACTION:

Notice of cancellation of Environmental Impact Statement. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of the Air Force is canceling the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Common Battlefield Airmen Training (CBAT) Program. The Air Force proposed implementing the CBAT Program at one of three Air Force installations: Moody Air Force Base (AFB), near Valdosta, GA; Barksdale AFB in Bossier City, LA; and Arnold AFB near Manchester, TN. 

                        The Air Force published two previous                         **Federal Register**                         notices on this proposal:                     
      - Notice of Intent (NOI)—FR November 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 219, pg. 66313-66314)
      - Notice of Availability (NOA)—FR June 28, 2007 (Vol. 72, No. 110, pg. 31822)—Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Debra Harkiewicz, HQ AETC/A7CVI, 266 F Street W., Bldg 901, Randolph, AFB, TX 78150—(210) 652-3959. 

Bao-Anh Trinh, 

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. E8-22046 Filed 9-19-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JULMAL LEWIS

PETITION OF: DANIEL SILVERMAN, ESQ. :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 29 EM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8 th day of September , 2022, in consideration of the Motion to

Withdraw as Counsel, this matter is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of

Philadelphia County for that court to determine whether Attorney Daniel Silverman should

be permitted to withdraw. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 120(B)(1), C omment (precluding an attorney

from ceasing representation of a criminal

- defendant client absent leave of court).

T he Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is ORDERED to enter its order

regarding this remand within 90 days and to notify this Court promptly of its determination.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM APPLICABLE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          15,526
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,697
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,129
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,717
<PP&E>                                       1,223,233
<DEPRECIATION>                               (527,849)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 781,931
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           65,949
<BONDS>                                        262,829
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         17
<COMMON>                                           429
<OTHER-SE>                                     298,756
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   781,931
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,868
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,125
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (99)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,680
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,354
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                987
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       987
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-79-PB

Dorothy Collins, Patrick Shiner,

Keith Samson and Bylinda Floyd

O R D E R

Defendant Bylinda Floyd has moved through counsel to

continue the June 6, 2006 trial in the above case, citing the

need for additional time to review recently provided discovery

and prepare a defense. 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 June 6, 2006 to July 6, 2006. 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 

Case 1:06-cr-00079-PB Document 22 Filed 05/22/06 Page 1 of 2
2

best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy

trial.

The May 23, 2006 final pretrial conference is continued

until June 27, 2006 at 4:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

May 22, 2006

cc: Michael D. Ramsdell, Esq.

Richard Monteith, Ese.

Paul Pappas, Esq.

Michael Shklar, Esq.

Debra Walsh, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00079-PB Document 22 Filed 05/22/06 Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 March 28, 2014

t0324

Order 

Clerk

March 28, 2014

148243

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148243

COA: 311772

Marquette CC: 11-049971-FH

MICHAEL ALDEN WALLINE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 17, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit (10)(a)

  

  

  

  

  

  

  Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

  

  

  

  

  We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
    Post-Effective Amendment No. 61 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 033-27783) and Amendment No. 510 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-05721), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 13, 2019, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The
    Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account H for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

   

  

  /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

  

  

  

  

  

  

  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

  September 6, 2019
EXHIBIT 99.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





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





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





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





Dated: January 21, 2002/s/    BRUCE KORMAN





/s/    EDMUND KINGChief Executive Officer





Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-23-SM

Bejamin Alford

O R D E R

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

trial is granted (document 9). Trial has been rescheduled for the June 20, 

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

not later than March 27, 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: June 13, 2006 at 10:30 a.m.

Jury Selection: June 20, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00023-SM Document 10 Filed 03/16/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

March 16, 2006

cc: Glenn Geiger, Esq.

Helen Fitzgibbon, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00023-SM Document 10 Filed 03/16/06 Page 2 of 2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In  connection  with  the  Annual  Report  of  Advance  Financial  Bancorp  (the
"Company") on Form 10QSB for the quarter ended  December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  we,
Stephen M.  Gagliardi,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer,  and Stephen M.
Magnone,  Treasurer (Chief  Financial  Officer),  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

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

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



/s/Stephen M. Gagliardi                     /s/Stephen M. Magnone
-------------------------------------       -----------------------------------
Stephen M. Gagliardi                        Stephen M. Magnone
President and Chief Executive Officer       Treasurer (Chief Financial Officer)




February 12, 2004
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michael DeAngelis

v. 06-cv-376-PB

NH State Prison

O R D E R

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Magistrate Judge James R. Muirhead, is

designated to review the request for injunctive relief submitted by Plaintiff Michael DeAngelis and,

if necessary, conduct any hearing that may be set.

In accordance with subparagraph (C), the Magistrate Judge shall file his proposed findings

and recommendations under subparagraph (B) with the Court, and a copy shall forthwith be mailed

to all parties.

SO ORDERED.

July 5, 2007 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Michael DeAngelis, Pro Se

Andrew Livernois, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00376-JL Document 42 Filed 07/05/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In re Jacques Dimitri Elias Case No. 05-cv-321-PB

O R D E R

Re: Document No. 10, Motion for Leave to file

Interlocutory Appeal

Ruling: The bankruptcy court’s September 2, 2005 order

explains in detail why a stay is not warranted. Reviewing the

matter de novo, I reached the same conclusion reached by the

bankruptcy court. Neither the debtor’s motion to reconsider my

ruling nor the current motion provide any new information that

warrants a different conclusion. In particular, the debtor’s offer

to make additional payments does nothing to address the bankruptcy

court’s correct conclusion that the appeal is unlikely to be

successful. Motion denied. 

 

/s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

District Judge

Date: December 20, 2005

cc: Leonard Deming, II, Esq.

 Neil Gauthier, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00321-PB Document 11 Filed 12/20/05 Page 1 of 1