alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Court of Appeals

First District of Texas

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01

- 16

- 00890

- CV

Praise Deliverance Church

v

.

Jelinis, LLC and Hreal Companyy, LLC

NO. 1080764 IN THE CO CIVIL CT AT LAW NO 3 OF HARRIS C OUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE
RPT RECORD
CLK RECORD
FILING
STATEWIDE EFILING $15.00 $110.70 $251.00 $175.00 $30.00 11/02/2017

11/17/2016
11/16/2016
11/15/2016
11/15/2016 E

- PAID
PAID
PAID
E

- PAID
E

- PAID ANT

ANT
ANT
ANT
ANT



### The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are $581.70.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine , Clerk o f the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal i n this case.IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, this 25 th day of May, 2018

.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Robert Heghmann

v. Case No. 06-cv-03-PB

Paul Maguire, 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 May 23, 2006.

SO ORDERED.

June 21, 2006 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Robert Heghmann

Case 1:06-cv-00003-PB Document 8 Filed 06/21/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-106-PB

Craig Marcotte

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the December 5, 2006

trial in the above case, citing the need for additional time to

engage in plea negotiations. The government does not object to a

continuance of the trial date.

In order to allow the parties additional time to negotiate a

plea agreement or properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from December 5, 2006 to January 9, 2007. In

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

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

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

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

Case 1:06-cr-00106-PB Document 16 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on December

19, 2006 at 4:15 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

November 21, 2006

cc: Tony Soltani, Esq.

Helen Fitzbiggon, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00106-PB Document 16 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

James Sloman

v. Civil No. 06-cv-377-JD

Presstek, Inc., et al.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

James Sloman brings this securities fraud class action on

behalf of himself and a putative class of similarly situated

persons, viz., all persons who purchased Presstek, Inc. common

stock during a particular period. Claiming that the defendants

issued materially false and misleading revenue assessments in

violation of section 10(b) and section 20(a) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 of the regulations

promulgated thereunder, Sloman seeks recovery of damages and

expenses. 

The defendants move to dismiss, arguing that Sloman has

failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, see

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and that he has failed to plead his

allegations of fraud with particularity, see Fed. R. Civ. P.

9(b); Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”),

15 U.S.C. § 78u-4. Sloman objects to the defendants’ motion to

dismiss. After the motion was submitted to the court for

consideration, however, the United States Supreme Court decided

Case 1:06-cv-00377-JL Document 28 Filed 06/26/07 Page 1 of 2
2

two cases that appear relevant to the issues in dispute. See

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, --- U.S. ---, 127 S. Ct. 1955

(May 21, 2007) (considering the standard required to survive a

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in an antitrust

class action); Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., ---

U.S. ---, 2007 WL 1773208 (June 21, 2007) (considering the

pleading requirements of the PSLRA). 

Because these two decisions may have altered the pleading

requirements that existed when the parties drafted their

respective memoranda, the court invites the parties to file

supplemental memoranda addressing these decisions and whether

they impact upon the outcome of the pending motion to dismiss. 

To that end, the defendants may file a supplemental memorandum in

support of their motion to dismiss no later than July 12, 2007. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b), Sloman may file his supplemental

memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss within ten days

of the service of the defendants’ memorandum. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

June 26, 2007

cc: David Quinn Gacioch, Esquire

Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esquire

Michael D. Kendall, Esquire

Mark L. Mallory, Esquire

Robert E. McDaniel, Esquire

Thomas G. Shapiro, Esquire

Matthew L. Tuccillo, Esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00377-JL Document 28 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

ELECTRONIC SOUND, INC., a 

Nebraska corporation;

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

NORTH AMERICAN SPECIALTY 

INSURANCE COMPANY, a New 

Hampshire Insurance Company;

Defendant,

vs.

ZATA ELECTRIC, LLC

Defaulted Defendant. 

8:23CV199

SHOW CAUSE ORDER

Plaintiff filed this action on May 16, 2023. (Filing No. 1). Plaintiff has filed a 

summons returned executed upon Zata Electric, LLC. (Filing No. 13). To date, 

Defendant has not filed an answer or other responsive pleading. An entry of default 

was entered in this case on June 29, 2023. (Filing No. 15). The clerk’s entry of 

default was mailed to Defendant Zata Electric, LLC, and the mailing was not 

returned. Defendant has not moved to set aside the entry of default and Plaintiff 

has taken no further action. Plaintiff has a duty to prosecute this case with 

reasonable diligence. See NECivR 41.2. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff is given until October 20, 2023, to show cause why its claims 

against Defendant Zata Electric, LLC should not be dismissed for 

8:23-cv-00199-BCB-CRZ Doc # 19 Filed: 09/29/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 37
want of prosecution. The failure to timely comply with this order may 

result in dismissal of the claims against these defendants without 

further notice. 

2) The clerk shall mail a copy of this order to Defendant at:

Zata Electric, LLC

c/o USCA, Inc., Registered Agent

Omaha, NE 68102

Dated this 29th day of September, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cv-00199-BCB-CRZ Doc # 19 Filed: 09/29/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 38
EXHIBIT 15

                           Accountants' Acknowledgment

Linens 'n Things, Inc.
Clifton, New Jersey

Board of Directors:

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

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated October 21, 2003 related to our
review of interim financial information.

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


KPMG LLP


New York, New York
November 18, 2003
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DAVID BOYD KERR, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. No. 98-7352 RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-98-160-2) Submitted: March 30, 1999 Decided: April 29, 1999 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL David Boyd Kerr, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: David Boyd Kerr, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We dismiss the appeal. In his petition, Kerr claimed that two disciplinary convictions that resulted in the loss of good time credits violated the Due ProcessClause. The Supreme Court of Virginia previously had, without discussion, denied Kerr's state habeas corpus challenges to the convictions as "frivolous." The magistrate judge recommended that the district court defer to the state court decisions pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d) (West Supp. 1999) and deny relief. Over Kerr's objections, the district court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denied the petition.Because each of the Virginia court's decisions is devoid of any reasoning supporting the conclusion that Kerr's habeas corpus petitions were frivolous, it is impossible to say whether deference to those decisions under § 2254(d) was correct. However, after carefully reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that Kerr was affordedall the process due him in connection with both disciplinary proceedings. See Wolff v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539, 564 (1974). In each case,he received notice of the charge against him, a statement of the reasons for the unfavorable decision, and the opportunity to call witnesses in his defense. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealabilty and dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
2
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                        18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  XXII Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB
for  the  period  ended September 30, 2007,  as  filed  with  the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on  the  date  hereof  (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President  of  AEI
Fund  Management XXI, Inc., the Managing General Partner  of  the
Partnership, and Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI
Fund  Management XXI, Inc., each certify, pursuant to  18  U.S.C.
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 Partnership.


                          /s/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              November 9, 2007



                          /s/ Patrick  W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              November 9, 2007
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


August 23, 2019


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 442 (the “Fund”)


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the Fund, consisting of the unit investment trust (the “Trust”) included in
the Registration Statement relating to the Fund. We enclosed a list of the securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date
hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such securities as of close of business on August 22, 2019, in accordance
with the valuation method set forth in the applicable Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to
the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations of the Trust securities in the Registration
Statement (No. 333-231496) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the
Units of the Trust and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO
	 	Gerardo Cipriano
	 	Vice President
Case 1:05-mj-00071-JM Document 6 Filed 06/20/05 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:05-mj-00071-JM Document 6 Filed 06/20/05 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:05-mj-00071-JM Document 6 Filed 06/20/05 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:05-mj-00071-JM Document 6 Filed 06/20/05 Page 4 of 4
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1628

TODD M. JACK, MS, PhD, Trustee, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

PRESIDENT CUTLER DAWSON, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District 

Judge. (5:09-cv-00032-gec) 

Submitted: January 20, 2010 Decided: February 3, 2010 

Before MICHAEL and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Todd M. Jack, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Todd M. Jack appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 

(2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Jack v. Dawson, No. 5:09-cv-00032-gec (W.D. Va. 

May 20, 2009). 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
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1349

To repeal the 50 percent limitation on courses offered through

telecommunications for student financial assistance programs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 3, 2001

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

Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To repeal the 50 percent limitation on courses offered

through telecommunications for student financial assistance programs.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL.

4 Subsection (l) of section 484 of the Higher Education

5 Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091) is repealed.

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 24, 2009 

l0217 

Order 

 

February 24, 2009 

137364 

& (17) 

 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137364 

 COA: 286303 

Isabella CC: 07-000039-FC 

THOMAS DANIEL BABB, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 8, 2008 order 

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

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to remand is 

DENIED.
#### Edward F. NASH et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, a Municipal Corporation, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc.

Jan. 7, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 1, 1955.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Case 1:06-cv-00257-PB   Document 32   Filed 11/07/06   Page 1 of 12

Case 1:06-cv-00257-PB   Document 32   Filed 11/07/06   Page 2 of 12

Case 1:06-cv-00257-PB   Document 32   Filed 11/07/06   Page 3 of 12

Case 1:06-cv-00257-PB   Document 32   Filed 11/07/06   Page 4 of 12

Case 1:06-cv-00257-PB   Document 32   Filed 11/07/06   Page 5 of 12

Case 1:06-cv-00257-PB   Document 32   Filed 11/07/06   Page 6 of 12

Case 1:06-cv-00257-PB   Document 32   Filed 11/07/06   Page 7 of 12

Case 1:06-cv-00257-PB   Document 32   Filed 11/07/06   Page 8 of 12

Case 1:06-cv-00257-PB   Document 32   Filed 11/07/06   Page 9 of 12

Case 1:06-cv-00257-PB   Document 32   Filed 11/07/06   Page 10 of 12

Case 1:06-cv-00257-PB   Document 32   Filed 11/07/06   Page 11 of 12

Case 1:06-cv-00257-PB   Document 32   Filed 11/07/06   Page 12 of 12
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001023060
<NAME> ENSERCH EXPLORATION, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,591
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,340
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                62,979
<PP&E>                                       2,520,999
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,131,818)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,467,619
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           99,117
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          150,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       126,920
<OTHER-SE>                                     592,373
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,467,619
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               162,064
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  500,612
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    76
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,085
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (351,623)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (123,072)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (228,551)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (228,551)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.80)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-175-01-SM

Mark Maynard

O R D E R

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

trial is granted (document 8). Trial has been rescheduled for the February 2007

trial period. Defendant Maynard shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than October 25, 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: January 29, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: February 6, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00175-SM Document 9 Filed 10/16/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

October 16, 2006

cc: Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Mark Zuckerman, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00175-SM Document 9 Filed 10/16/06 Page 2 of 2
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.ss.1350),
the  undersigned,  David  Allen,  Chief  Executive  Officer and Chief  Financial
Officer of The Millbrook  Press Inc., a Delaware  corporation  (the  "Company"),
does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended October 31, 2002
of the Company (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section
13(a) or 15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  and the  information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: December 13, 2002                       /s/ David Allen
                                              ---------------------------
                                              David Allen
                                              Chief Executive Officer and
                                              Chief Financial Officer
```