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. 

ROBERT VINCENT HARRIS,

Defendant.

4:23CR3057

ORDER

Newly appointed defense counsel has now entered an appearance in this 

case and has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (Filing No. 19), 

because he needs additional time review this case and confer with the defendant 

before deciding if pretrial motions should be filed. 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. 19 ), is granted.

2) Pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before July 19, 2023.

3) A telephonic conference with counsel will be held before the 

undersigned magistrate judge at 10:15 a.m. on July 21, 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 the additional time arising as a result of the granting of the 

motion, the time between June 16, 2023 and July 21, 2023 shall be 

deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the 

requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because although counsel have 

been duly diligent, additional time is needed to adequately prepare 

4:23-cr-03057-JMG-CRZ Doc # 20 Filed: 06/23/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 31
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.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cr-03057-JMG-CRZ Doc # 20 Filed: 06/23/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 32
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Samuel J. Bourne

v. Civil No. 05-cv-365-JD

Town of Madison, et al.

O R D E R

In anticipation of trial, the parties filed pretrial

materials and motions addressing those materials. The trial has

now been continued to a date that will be scheduled after the

motions for summary judgment are resolved. To avoid confusion,

the motions addressing pretrial materials are denied without

prejudice to refile, if necessary, when a new trial schedule is

set.

In addition, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was

improperly included within their objection to the plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment. For that reason, on January 21,

2010, the defendants’ were notified that their summary judgment

motion must be refiled. To date, the defendants’ have not

refiled their motion.

The plaintiff moved for leave to file a reply to the

defendants’ objection to his motion for summary judgment on his

interference with contractual relations claim. Because the reply

is to an objection to a dispositive motion, however, leave is not

Case 1:05-cv-00365-JD Document 180 Filed 02/02/10 Page 1 of 3
required. LR 7.1(e)(1). Instead, the reply must be filed within

fourteen days of service of the objection. Id. Because the

plaintiff mistakenly filed for leave to file his reply, the time

to file might pass while that motion is pending. Therefore, the

plaintiff’s reply will be docketed, and his motion for leave will

be terminated.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the parties’ motions related to

pretrial matters for the previously scheduled trial are resolved

as follows:

1. the defendants’ motion for relief (document no. 140) and

motion to limit evidence of damages (document no. 144), and

2. the plaintiff’s motion to strike part of the witness

list (document no. 150) and motion to preclude exhibits (document

no. 153) 

are denied without prejudice. 

In addition, because the plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment on the counterclaim (document no. 139) has been denied

as moot, the plaintiff’s motion (document no. 177) for leave to

file a reply to the objection to that motion is also denied as

moot.

2

Case 1:05-cv-00365-JD Document 180 Filed 02/02/10 Page 2 of 3
To avoid unnecessary further delay, the deadline for

refiling the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is February

12, 2010. The plaintiff will have thirty days from the date of

filing to file his response. Local Rule 7.1(e)(1) shall govern

filing a reply, and Local Rule 7.1(e)(3) shall govern filing a

surreply.

The plaintiff’s motion for leave to reply (document no. 178)

is terminated. The plaintiff’s reply filed with his motion for

leave will be docketed. Local Rule 7.1(e)(3) shall govern the

opportunity to file a surreply.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

February 2, 2010

cc: Samuel J. Bourne, Esquire

Brian J.S. Cullen, Esquire

Richard D. Sager, Esquire

3

Case 1:05-cv-00365-JD Document 180 Filed 02/02/10 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-221-01-PB

Thomas Newton

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the January 4, 2006

trial in the above case. Defendant cites the need for additional

time to consult with newly retained counsel and prepare a

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

trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to properly prepare for trial, the court will continue the trial

from January 4, 2006 to April 4, 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 best

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

Case 1:05-cr-00221-PB Document 9 Filed 12/19/05 Page 1 of 2
2

The December 21, 2005 final pretrial conference is continued

until March 23, 2006 at 4:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

December 19, 2005

cc: Stephen Cherry, Esq.

Arnold Huftalen, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00221-PB Document 9 Filed 12/19/05 Page 2 of 2
atax-ex102_7.htm



Exhibit 10.2

 

RELEASE OF INTEREST IN INTEREST RATE CAP

 

 

 

 

WHERAS, Royal Bank of Canada (the "Bank") previously entered into that certain rate cap agreement dated July 8, 2015, with ATAX TEBS III, LLC (the "Counterparty); (the "Cap"), with a reference number of 2647616/2829828/2832527; and

 

WHEREAS, the Cap was collaterally assigned to The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Secured Lender") in connection with a pool of multifamily bonds ("Bonds"); and

 

WHEREAS, the Counterparty's obligations under the Bonds have been discharged.

 

The Secured Lender hereby releases all right, title and interest (including any security interest) it has in the Cap as of August 19, 2019, and waives any right to approve a termination, modification or novation of the Cap on or after such date.

 

 

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL HOME LOAN

MORTGAGE CORPORATION

 

By:/s/ Thomas C. McDonald

Thomas C. McDonald

Director, Multifamily Asset Management
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 13

- 00568

- CV

Walter ARNETT

, Appellant

v.

TEXAS WORKFORCE CO M MISSION and Sears, Roebuck & Co.,

Appellees

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- CI

- 12680

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the joint motion to dismiss is

GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED.

We ORDER all costs assessed against the party who incurred them.

SIGNED October 23, 2013.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Dismiss and Opinion Filed July 2, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-12-01650-CR

JORGE RIZO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F12-51864-T



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Evans

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the ap peal. Appellant’s couns el has approved the

motion. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the appeal be DISMISSED and

this decision be certified be low for observance. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47 121650F.U05
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-78-01-PB

Mark Tormey

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the August 19, 2005

suppression hearing and September 7, 2005 trial in the above

case, citing the need for additional time to complete discovery

and engage in plea negotiations. 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 September 7, 2005 to November 1, 2005. 

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 1:05-cr-00078-PB Document 27 Filed 08/18/05 Page 1 of 2
2

The clerk shall reschedule the suppression hearing currently

scheduled for August 19, 2005. The August 31, 2005 final

pretrial conference is continued until October 18, 2005 at 3:30

p.m.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

August 18, 2005

cc: David Bownes, Esq.

Mark Howard, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00078-PB Document 27 Filed 08/18/05 Page 2 of 2
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Jay H. Cohen, Individually and as Trustee of the JHC Trust I and II v. 

NewBiss Property, L.P.

Appellate case number: 01-13-00233-CV

Trial court case number: 2010-20973A

Trial court: 234th District Court of Harris County

Appellant Jay H. Cohen, Individually and as Trustee of the JHC Trust I and II, has filed a 

“Motion for Injunction to Preserve this Court’s Jurisdiction, or Alternatively, for Stay of 

Expungement Orders,” regarding the trial court’s orders dated June 29, 2011 and November 9, 

2012. The motion is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 19, 2013
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 9, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00233-CV

JAVIER CASTILLO, Appellant

V.

MI-JACK PRODUCTS, INC.; ACE INDUSTRIES, INC.; AND JAMES 

SCOTT PARCHMONT, Appellees

On Appeal from the 269th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-84588

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed January 14, 2022. The notice of 

appeal was due February 14, 2022. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a).

1 Appellant, however, 

1 Although the notice of appeal could have been timely filed within six months after the 

judgment was signed if this were a restricted appeal, see Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(c), this cannot be a 

restricted appeal. The record reflects that appellant’s counsel participated in a January 13, 2022 

hearing that resulted in the final judgment, and restricted appeals are limited to parties who “did 

not participate—either in person or through counsel—in the hearing that resulted in the judgment 

complained of.” Tex. R. App. P. 30.
2

filed his notice of appeal on March 30, 2022, a date more than 15 days after the due 

date for the notice of appeal. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 

1997).2

On April 29, 2022, this court informed appellant by letter about the untimely 

notice of appeal and warned him his appeal was subject to dismissal if he failed to 

show meritorious grounds for continuing the appeal. Appellant filed no response to 

the letter. Accordingly, due to the lack of any basis for exercising jurisdiction over 

this appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Jewell.

2 Appellant dated his notice of appeal February 28, 2022, but the trial court clerk 

filestamped the notice of appeal on March 30, 2022 to reflect its filing on that date. There is no 

evidence that the notice of appeal was actually received by the trial court clerk within 10 days of 

the February 28th deadline, see Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b)(1), so this discrepancy cannot help 

demonstrate the notice of appeal might be timely.
#### GLOSTON v. INDUSTRIAL LUMBER CO., Inc., et al.

No. 1414.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Jan. 21, 1935.

Fern M. Wood, of Leesville, for appellant.

Thornton, Gist & Richey, of Alexandria, and Modisette & Adams, of Jennings, for ap-pellees.

ELLIOTT, Judge.

The judgment appealed from in this case isnot in the record. There is no motion to dismiss. Industrial Lumber Company Inc., appeared in this court and answered the appeal, praying that the rulings of the lower court overruling certain exceptions be set aside, the exceptions sustained, and the suit dismissed. The other defendant, Edmos Gloston, did not answer the appeal. The minutes show that a judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants, but the mere statement that such was done is all that appears from the minutes.

 Act No. 234 of 1932 commences with the provision: “That whenever an appellant files an incomplete transcript, or files the transcript or,” etc. The language of the act taken as a whole intends that appeals are not to he dismissed merely because a part of the record, for instance, the judgment appealed from, is not contained in the transcript, which fact may be, and usually is, due to oversight or inadvertence on the part of the clerk of the district court in getting together the original papers forming the record.

Taking into account the act of 1932, the appeal is not dismissed, but, as the record does not inform us as to the terms of the judgment appealed from, the case is remanded to the clerk of the district court, parish of Allen, and it is ordered that the clerk of said court issue a notice to Elzena Gloston, appellant, that the judgment appealed from is absent from the record, and that the record must be completed within ten days from service of the notice. This notice is to be served on her by the sheriff of the parish of Allen.

It is further ordered that Elzena Gloston have leave to complete the transcript by placing in it the judgment appealed from or a’ certified copy of the same within ten days from the day notice of this order is served on her. If the transcript is completed within the time stated, the clerk of said court is to return the completed record without delay to the clerk of this court at Baton Rouge, La., upon which the consideration of the appeal will be resumed.

If the transcript is not completed within said time, the appeal is in that event to be regarded as dismissed.
No. 72-1058.

#### O’Brien et al. *v.*Skinner, Sheriff, et al.

Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. Probable jurisdiction noted.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.2(a)







SCHEDULE IDENTIFYING AGREEMENTS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THE FORM
 OF TRADEMARK, TRADE NAME AND DOMAIN NAME LICENSE AGREEMENT FILED AS EXHIBIT 10.2 TO THIS CURRENT REPORT ON FORM 8-K
PURSUANT TO INSTRUCTION 2 TO ITEM 601 OF REGULATION S-K
Kaman Corporation entered into separate Trademark, Trade Name and Domain Name License Agreements, dated as of August 26, 2019, with each of the parties listed below, which agreements are substantially identical in all material respects to the form of Trademark, Trade Name and Domain Name License Agreement filed as Exhibit 10.2 to this Current Report on Form 8-K.


		
	1)
	Kaman Industrial Technologies Corporation


		
	2)
	LJ KIT Blocker, Inc.


		
	3)
	LJ KAI Blocker, Inc.


		
	4)
	LJ KFP Blocker, Inc.


		
	5)
	Ruby Automation, LLC


		
	6)
	Kaman Fluid Power, LLC


		
	7)
	Ruby PR, LLC
<PAGE>   1
COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE                                  EXHIBIT 11 
Quaker State Corporation and Subsidiaries

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                              Quarter Ended       Six Months Ended
                                                                           06/30/97   06/30/96   06/30/97   06/30/96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      (in thousands except per share data, unaudited)
<S>  <C>                                                                   <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
1.   Net income                                                            $  8,844   $  7,173   $ 15,709   $ 12,879
======================================================================================================================
2.   Average number of shares of capital
     stock outstanding                                                       35,104     32,899     34,992     32,859

3.   Shares issuable upon exercise of dilutive stock
     options outstanding during the period, based on
     average market prices                                                      226        113        164        114

4.   Shares issuable upon exercise of dilutive stock
     options outstanding during the period, based on
     higher of average or period-end market prices                              278        179        233        138

5.   Average number of capital and capital equivalent
     shares outstanding (2 + 3)                                              35,330     33,012     35,156     32,973

6.   Average number of capital shares outstanding,
     assuming full dilution (2 + 4)                                          35,382     33,078     35,225     32,997

7.   Net income per capital and capital equivalent share
     (1 divided by 5)                                                      $   0.25   $   0.22   $   0.45   $   0.39
======================================================================================================================
8.   Net income per capital share assuming full dilution
     (1 divided by 6)                                                      $   0.25   $   0.22   $   0.45   $   0.39
======================================================================================================================
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-73-PB

Soreasey Soeur

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the June 6, 2006 trial

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

a defense. The government does not object to a continuance of

the trial date.

Accordingly, 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 best interests of the public

and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00073-PB Document 109 Filed 05/30/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on June 28,

2006 at 4:00 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

May 30, 2006

cc: David H. Bownes, Esq.

Mark Howard, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00073-PB Document 109 Filed 05/30/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Appendix A to item 601(c) of Regulation S-K
Commercial and Industrial Companies
Article 5 of Regulation S-X
(in thousands, except per share data)
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-03-1999
<CASH>                                           3,901
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,368
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    332,626
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               383,729
<PP&E>                                         277,948
<DEPRECIATION>                                  77,392
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 609,929
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          230,395
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           395
<OTHER-SE>                                     338,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   609,929
<SALES>                                        545,168
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               545,168
<CGS>                                          327,581
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  203,497
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (55)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,145
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,447
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,698
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,698
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21



</TABLE>