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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-260-01-JD

FNU LNU

a/k/a Jose Soler

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

17) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. 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), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

 Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: July 31, 2008

cc: Jeffrey S. Levin, Esq.

 Alfred J.T. Rubega, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:05-cr-00260-JD Document 19 Filed 07/31/08 Page 1 of 1
#### LEDET v. LOUISIANA HIGHWAY COMMISSION.

No. 2297.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Nov. 19, 1941.

Arthur B. Hammond and Tom M. Hayes, Jr., both of Baton Rouge, for appellant;

Ellis, Ellis & Barranger, of Covington, Talley & Talley, of Bogalusa, and Pugh, Lanier & Pugh, of Thibodaux, for appellee.

DORE, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the consolidated cases of Charles M. Warnick and others v. Louisiana Highway Commission, *6164 So.2d 607, this day handed down, the ■ judgment appealed from is hereby amended by increasing the award from $750 to $1,250, and as thus amended affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Harvey Pratt

v. 05-cv-367-SM

New Hampshire Department of

Corrections, et al.

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated March 31, 2006, for the

reasons set forth therein. 

SO ORDERED.

April 11, 2006 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Harvey Pratt, pro se
April 9 , 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JOSEPH BARNARD HINES , Appellant

NO. 14

- 15

- 00274

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_________ _______________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record indicates that the appeal should be dismissed

. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. We further order appellant pa y all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-105-1-JD

Vincent Chaney

O R D E R

Defendant appeared for a bail revocation hearing pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3148. 

Defendant violated his curfew and participated in a

shoplifting scam by his girlfriend and her sister. The latter

worked at Macy’s and pretended to scan in 13 of the 15 items

(including men’s stuff) taken. The third party custodian, the

girlfriend’s mother, wholly failed in her responsibilities. 

Given the failed opportunities to comply with conditions I

find that the defendant is unlikely to abide by any condition or

combination of conditions. The conditions of release are

revoked.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained

pending trial. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney

General or his designated representative for confinement in a

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from

Case 1:06-cr-00105-PB Document 31 Filed 01/16/08 Page 1 of 2
2

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On

order of a court of the United States or on request of an

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

___________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: January 16, 2008 

cc: Paul J. Garrity, Esq.

 William E. Morse, Esq.

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00105-PB Document 31 Filed 01/16/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States

v. Case No. 05-cr-171-01-SM

Kimberly Baez

ORDER

Re: Document No. 37, Motion to Reduce Sentence and to

Appoint CJA Counsel

Ruling: Denied; Petitioner is not eligible for sentence

relief based upon the cocaine base (“crack”) sentencing guideline

that was later retroactively amended, because her guideline

sentencing range (GSR) was based upon the career offender

provisions. The retroactive crack cocaine guideline amendment

would have no effect on her GSR calculation. Petitioner filed a

motion for identical relief previously, which motion was denied on

the same grounds. 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

Date: June 22, 2010

cc: Kimberly Baez

Helen Fitzgibbon, AUSA

Aixa Maldonado, AUSA

Patrick Richard, Esq. 

Case 1:05-cr-00171-SM Document 38 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 1
174 La. 357

#### DELTA LAND *&*TIMBER CO. v. BEAUREGARD PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.

No. 31334.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 29, 1932.

Thompson *&*Ferguson, of Leesville, and Frank E. Powell,' of De Ridder, for appellant.

John J. Robira, Dist. Atty., and Sam H, Jones, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Lake Charles, for appellee.

OVERTON, J.

The trial judge, in sustaining an exception of no cause of action herein, has thus stated the issues involved:

> “The issue in this case is the interpretation of section 10 of article 10 of the Constitution of 1921, relating to special taxes for school purposes.

> “The specific complaint of the plaintiff taxpayer is that, by means of special taxes voted and levied in over-lapping districts, its property is sought to be subjected to taxes for school purposes greater than the limit fixed by the Constitutional provision. It is contended that the limit of eight mills on the dollar for any year upon any property means not only that one taxing district shall not exceed this millage, but that the total aggregate voted and levied by two or more taxing districts having jurisdiction over the same property shall not exceed the same limitation.

> “An exception of no cause of action has been filed, based on the theory that the Constitutional limitation applies only to the total tax which may be voted and levied by each separate taxing district, and that, therefore, the total Constitutional tax which may affect any one parcel of property is limited only by eight mills, multiplied by the number of taxing districts having jurisdiction over it.

> “The Constitutional provisions in question were interpreted by the Supreme Court in La. & Ark. Ry. Co. v. School Board of Webster Parish, 157 La. 1046, 103 So. 318. In that case the majority of the Court held, as stated in the syllabus, that:

> “Under, Const, art. 10, § 10, authorizing any parish, school district, or sub-school district to levy, for support of public schools, taxes not to exceed 8 mills on the dollar, parish, school district, or sub-district, may levy tax up to limit so fixed without regard to taxes levied by the other.”

Upon due consideration, we see no reason to change the opinion which we reached in the case mentioned by the district judge, and we adhere to it. See, also, Woodard v. Bienville Parish School Board, 169 La. 831, 126 So. 207.

For the reasons assigned, it is ordered that the judgment appealed from be affirmed.

ST. PAUL, J., concurs in the decree.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joseph Sawtell

v. Civil No. 06-cv-229-SM

Warden, NH State Prison

O R D E R

This case is stayed while the petitioner returns to state court to exhaust state remedies. This

case shall be administratively closed while the stay is in effect. It is therefore ordered that counsel

for the plaintiff shall file a status report every 90 days until the issues are resolved. The Court

should, of course, immediately be notified upon ultimate resolution of the issues.

SO ORDERED.

August 22, 2006 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Thomas J. Gleason, Esq.

Charles J. Keefe, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00229-SM Document 7 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 1
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1463

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat distributions from

publicly traded partnerships as qualifying income of regulated investment

companies, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. HERGER (for himself, Mr. CRANE, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. FOLEY, Mr.

HOUGHTON, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. RAMSTAD, and Mr. NEAL

of Massachusetts) 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 treat distributions from publicly traded partnerships as qualifying

income of regulated investment companies, and for other

purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Publicly Traded Part5 nership Equity Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 1463 IH

1 SEC. 2. DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PUBLICLY TRADED PART2 NERSHIPS TREATED AS QUALIFYING INCOME

3 OF REGULATED INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 851(b)

5 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining regulated

6 investment company) is amended by inserting ‘‘distribu7 tions or other income derived from an interest in a publicly

8 traded partnership (as defined in section 7704(b)),’’ after

9 ‘‘dividends, interest,’’.

10 (b) SOURCE FLOW-THROUGH RULE NOT TO

11 APPLY.—The last sentence of section 851(b) of such Code

12 is amended by inserting ‘‘(other than a publicly traded

13 partnership (as defined in section 7704(b)))’’ after ‘‘de14 rived from a partnership’’.

15 SEC. 3. SPECIAL PASSIVE ACTIVITY RULE FOR PUBLICLY

16 TRADED PARTNERSHIPS TO APPLY TO REGU17 LATED INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

18 Subsection (k) of section 469 of the Internal Revenue

19 Code of 1986 (relating to separate application of section

20 in case of publicly traded partnerships) is amended by

21 adding at the end the following new paragraph:

22 ‘‘(4) APPLICATION TO REGULATED INVEST23 MENT COMPANIES.—For purposes of this section, a

24 regulated investment company (as defined in section

25 851) holding an interest in a publicly traded part26 nership shall be treated as a taxpayer described in
3

•HR 1463 IH

1 subsection (a)(2) with respect to items attributable

2 to such interest.’’.

3 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

4 The amendments made by this Act shall apply to tax5 able years beginning after the date of the enactment of

6 this Act.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 182 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21845]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,766]


Federal Mogul Corporation Lighting Products Division, Boyertown, 
PA; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility 
to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade 
Adjustment Assistance on August 27, 2008, applicable to workers of 
Federal Mogul Corporation, Lighting Products Division, Boyertown, 
Pennsylvania. The notice will be published soon in the Federal Register 
.
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of sealed beam forward lighting products.
    Findings show that there was a previous certification, TA-W-58,721, 
issued on March 6, 2006, for the workers of the Boyertown, Pennsylvania 
location of the subject firm. That certification expired March 6, 2008. 
To avoid an overlap in worker group coverage for the workers of the 
Boyertown, Pennsylvania location, the certification is being amended to 
change the impact date from July 24, 2007 to March 7, 2008.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to 
properly reflect this matter.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Federal Mogul Corporation who were adversely affected by 
increased imports of sealed beam forward lighting.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-63,766 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of Federal Mogul Corporation, Lighting Products 
Division, Boyertown, Pennsylvania, who became totally or partially 
separated from employment on or after March 7, 2008, through August 
27, 2010, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under 
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply 
for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the 
Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of September 2008.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-21845 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

BOBBY S. MOSS,

Petitioner, 

vs. 

ROB JEFFERYS,

Respondent.

8:23CV242

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in 

Forma Pauperis (“IFP”).1 Filing No. 2. Habeas corpus cases attacking the legality of a 

person’s confinement require the payment of a $5.00 fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The 

Court has reviewed the application to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)-

(2). Petitioner’s trust account information shows that Petitioner’s account contained an 

average monthly balance of $100 or more for the six-month period immediately 

preceding the filing of the petition. Filing No. 3. Thus, the Court concludes that 

Petitioner must be required to pay the $5.00 filing fee because he has the financial 

ability to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). No further review of this case will take place 

until the fee is paid. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed IFP, Filing No. 2, is denied. 

1 Upon initial filing, Petitioner’s IFP motion, Filing No. 2, as well as his petition, Filing No. 1, were 

unsigned, and the Clerk of the Court entered a Text Notice of Signature Deficiency requiring Petitioner to 

correct the deficiencies. Petitioner corrected the petition’s signature deficiency by filing the petition’s 

signature page on June 14, 2023, Filing No. 8, but did not file a signed copy of his IFP motion. Because 

the Court finds Petitioner is not eligible to proceed IFP, the signature deficiency issue is moot.

8:23-cv-00242-JFB-PRSE Doc # 9 Filed: 07/06/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 32
2

2. Petitioner must pay the $5.00 filing fee within 30 days. Petitioner is 

warned that if the fee is not paid as required, the Court may dismiss this case without 

further notice. 

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

deadline in this case using the following text: August 7, 2023: deadline for Petitioner to 

pay $5.00 filing fee.

4. No further review of this case will take place until the filing fee is paid.

Dated this 6th day of July, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00242-JFB-PRSE Doc # 9 Filed: 07/06/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 33
Presidential Documents

54485 

Federal Register 

Vol. 73, No. 183 

Friday, September 19, 2008 

Title 3— 

The President 

Proclamation 8290 

National POW/MIA Recognition Day, 2008 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

On National POW/MIA Recognition Day, we honor the brave and patriotic 

Americans who were held as prisoners of war, and we remember those 

who are still missing in action. For their valor and selfless devotion to 

protect the country they love, our Nation owes them a debt we can never 

fully repay. On this day we underscore our commitment and pledge to 

those who are still missing in action and to their families that we will 

not rest until we have achieved the fullest possible accounting for every 

member of our Armed Forces missing in the line of duty. 

To observe this important day, the National League of Families POW/MIA 

flag is flown over the Capitol, the White House, the World War II Memorial, 

the Korean War Veterans Memorial, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, and 

other locations across our country. The flag is a solemn reminder of our 

Nation’s enduring obligation and promise to our courageous service members 

who remain missing and a tribute to those who have been imprisoned 

while serving their country in conflicts around the world. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States 

of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution 

and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Friday, September 19, 

2008, as National POW/MIA Recognition Day. I call upon the people of 

the United States to join me in honoring and remembering all former American prisoners of war and those missing in action for their valiant service 

to our Nation. I also call upon Federal, State, and local government officials 

and private organizations to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies 

and activities. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with FRD1
54486 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 183 / Friday, September 19, 2008 / Presidential Documents 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventeenth 

day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of 

the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and 

thirty-third. 

[FR Doc. E8–22181 

Filed 9–18–08; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with FRD1GWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
Order entered January 15, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 12 - 013 05 - CR No. 05 - 12 - 013 06 - CR CHAD BLAKELEE HIGHTO WER , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court Dall as County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F1 0 - 33192 - W , F1 0 - 33202 - W 

### O RDER The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and

rec ommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeals, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeals. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’ s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measur es as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRT Y DAYS of the date of this order. The appeals are ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeals shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ CAROLY N WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-121-PB

Christopher Aldrich

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

February 6, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to allow defendant to undergo a psychiatric

evaluation to determine his ability to enter a plea or competency

to stand trial. Defendant’s treating physician at Exeter

Hospital has recommended such evaluation. Counsel further

indicates that defendant was found not guilty by reason of

insanity in a prior state court case in Delaware. The government

does not object 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 February 6, 2007 to May 1, 2007. In 

Case 1:06-cr-00121-PB Document 27 Filed 02/02/07 Page 1 of 2
2

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.

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on April 17,

2007 at 3:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

February 2, 2007

cc: Sven Wiberg, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00121-PB Document 27 Filed 02/02/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington, DC 20549








FORM 8-K








CURRENT REPORT


Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934








Date of Report (date of earliest event reported):  June 30, 2011





Frontier Communications Corporation


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)





Delaware


(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)





001-11001
06-0619596(Commission File Number)
(IRS Employer Identification No.)3 High Ridge Park, Stamford, Connecticut
06905(Address of principal executive offices)
(Zip Code)





(203) 614-5600


(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)





_________________


(Former name or former address, if changed since last report.)





Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (seeGeneral Instruction A.2. below):





o    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)





o    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)





o
Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))





o
Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR240.13e-4(c))





Item 8.01
Other Events




The information set forth in the press release issued by Frontier Communications Corporation on June 30, 2011, announcing plans to release the Company’s second quarter 2011 results, attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1, is incorporated herein by reference.




Item 9.01
Financial Statements and Exhibits




(d)           Exhibits




99.1
Press Release of Frontier Communications Corporation released on June 30, 2011 announcing plans to release the Company’s second quarter 2011 results.

















SIGNATURES







Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.










FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATIONDate:  June 30, 2011
By:/s/ Susana D’EmicSusana D’EmicSenior Vice President andController