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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

James Libert, On Behalf Of Himself

And All Others Similarly Situated

v. Civil No. 05-cv-177-JM

Mark W. Blodgett, Lawrence W. Blodgett

and StockerYale, Inc.

Graziella Peano, Individually And On

Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated

v. Civil No. 05-cv-195-JD

Mark W. Blodgett, Lawrence W. Blodgett

and StockerYale, Inc.

Nickalus T. Holt, Individually And On

Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated

v. Civil No. 05-cv-202-SM

Mark W. Blodgett, Lawrence W. Blodgett

and StockerYale, Inc.

O R D E R

 I. In each of these cases a motion for consolidation, for

appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of plaintiffs’ co-lead

counsel and liaison counsel was filed by the Hilderhoff Group. 

Each of these motions was subsequently withdrawn as to the

request for appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The

Case 1:05-cv-00177-SM Document 14 Filed 09/21/05 Page 1 of 3
2

dockets will be marked as follows: 

Document Docket # Entry

No. 6 05-cv-177-JM withdrawn request as to

lead plaintiff and lead

counsel

No. 5 05-cv-195-JD withdrawn request as to

lead plaintiff and lead

counsel

No. 6 05-cv-202-SM withdrawn request as to

lead plaintiff and lead

counsel

II. Both the Siregar Group and the Hilderhoff Group have

moved to consolidate the three cases. Defendants do not object

to consolidation. By separate order I have consolidated the

cases. Under the court’s assignment policy consolidated cases

are assigned to that judge presiding over the lowest numbered

case. In this instance they are assigned to me, that is, the

cases are consolidated into No. 05-cv-177-JM. Since I cannot

preside over the case without the consent of the parties, a

consent form is attached and counsel are ordered to notify the

clerk within twenty (20) days whether the parties consent or do 

Case 1:05-cv-00177-SM Document 14 Filed 09/21/05 Page 2 of 3
3

not consent to my jurisdiction. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: September 21, 2005

cc: Douglas C. Doskocil, Esq.

 Jennifer A. Eber, Esq.

 Christine Friedman, Esq.

 Mark L. Mallory, Esq.

 William L. Chapman, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00177-SM Document 14 Filed 09/21/05 Page 3 of 3
#### Michael BURNS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary MAYNARD, Director South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 03-6548.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 18, 2003.

Decided Aug. 18, 2003.

Michael Bums, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Michael Burns, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Burns has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument *257because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1503 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1503

To prohibit the Department of the Interior from expending any funds for 
         a mid-Atlantic coast offshore oil and gas lease sale.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2001

 Mr. Pallone introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the Department of the Interior from expending any funds for 
         a mid-Atlantic coast offshore oil and gas lease sale.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR MID-ATLANTIC OIL AND 
              GAS LEASE SALE.

    The Secretary of the Interior shall not expend any funds for the 
preparation of, or conduct of, preleasing and leasing activities 
(including calls for information, tract selection, notices of sale, 
receipt of bids, and award of leases) with respect to an oil and gas 
lease sale on any lands of the outer Continental Shelf between the 
seaward boundary between the States of Connecticut and Rhode Island and 
the seaward boundary between the States of North Carolina and South 
Carolina.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 182 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21898]



[[Page 54197]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 06/76-0330]


SunTx Fulcrum Fund II--SBIC, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under 
Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that SunTx Fulcrum Fund II--SBIC, L.P., Two 
Lincoln Centre, 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1000, Dallas, TX 75240, a 
Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as 
amended (``the Act''), in connection with the financing of a small 
concern, has sought an exemption under section 312 of the Act and 
section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of 
the Small Business Administration (``SBA'') rules and regulations (13 
CFR 107.730 (2002)). SunTx Fulcrum Fund II--SBIC, L.P. proposes to 
provide preferred equity security financing to Interface Security 
Holdings, Inc., 3773 Corporate Center Drive, Earth City, MO 63045. The 
financing is contemplated to provide the company with the necessary 
capital to purchase the interest of GAC's founders.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec. 107.730(a)(1) 
of the Regulations because SunTx Fulcrum Fund, L.P. and SunTx Fulcrum 
Dutch Investors, L.P., an Associate of SunTx Fulcrum Fund II--SBIC, 
L.P., own in the aggregate 47% of the outstanding ownership of 
Interface. Therefore, this transaction is considered a financing of an 
Associate requiring prior SBA approval.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction, within 15 days of the date of this 
publication, to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small 
Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416.

    Dated: September 5, 2008.
A. Joseph Shepard,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. E8-21898 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
**
**Exhibit 31**

**Certifications**

I,Richard Simpson, certify that: 

1.    I have reviewed this report onForm 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report onForm 10-K of Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2018-C6 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4.    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of RegulationAB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and 

5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their relatedattestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reportshave been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I havereasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; U.S. Bank NationalAssociation; CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc.; National Tax Search, LLC; KeyBank National Association; LNR Partners, LLC; Pentalpha Surveillance LLC; Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC; Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC; and Berkeley PointCapital LLC, dba Newmark Knight Frank. 

Date:    November 27, 2019 

 

/s/ Richard Simpson

Richard Simpson

President, Citigroup CommercialMortgage Securities Inc.

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

 
CGCMT 2018-C6 Certifications (2018) 

**
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

J. Krist Schell

v. Civil No. 06-cv-425-JM

Thomas W. Kent

O R D E R

 Counsel will review and inform the court of any agreement

on the breach of contract attorney’s fees. final pretrial

materials are to be filed on or before December 1, 2008. A

telephonic pretrial will be held between December 5th and

December 12th at a time arranged by counsel with the Deputy

Clerk. Trial is scheduled for January 21, 2009.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 22, 2008

cc: Daniel P. Schwarz

 David A. Strock

 Melinda J. Caterine

 K. William Clauson

Case 1:06-cv-00425-JM Document 67 Filed 10/22/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Charles Jay Wolff

v. Civil No. 06-cv-321-PB

New Hampshire Department

of Corrections, et al.

O R D E R

Plaintiff has filed a hard-boiled egg as part of his

preliminary injunction request.

Discussion

No fan I am

Of the egg at hand.

Just like no ham

On the kosher plan.

This egg will rot

I kid you not.

And stink it can

This egg at hand.

There will be no eggs at court

To prove a clog in your aort.

There will be no eggs accepted.

Objections all will be rejected.

From this day forth

This court will ban

hard-boiled eggs of any brand.

And if you should not understand

The meaning of the ban at hand

Then you should contact either Dan, 

the Deputy Clerk, or my clerk Jan.

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 56 Filed 09/18/07 Page 1 of 2
2

I do not like eggs in the file.

I do not like them in any style.

I will not take them fried or boiled.

I will not take them poached or broiled.

I will not take them soft or scrambled

Despite an argument well-rambled.

No fan I am

Of the egg at hand.

Destroy that egg!

Today! Today!

Today I say! Without delay!

SO ORDERED (with apologies to Dr. Seuss).

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: September 18, 2007

cc: Charles Jay Wolff, pro se

Andrew Livernois, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 56 Filed 09/18/07 Page 2 of 2
#### Henry Lee SANDERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Janie COCKRELL, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-41628

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 14, 2003.

Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Henry Lee Sanders, Texas inmate no. 666939, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) following the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application for a writ of habeas corpus. He is challenging a prison disciplinary conviction for failing to obey an order and being in an unauthorized place.

The district judge is married to the magistrate judge, and he therefore should have recused himself under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) so that another judge could review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. *See Jones v. Patrick,*54 Fed.Appx. 414 (5th Cir.2002) (unpublished) (same magistrate judge and same district judge as in present case).

A COA must be issued before this appeal may proceed. Fed. R.App. P. 22(b)(1). Accordingly, we GRANT a COA on the recusal issue, VACATE the judgment, and REMAND the case with directions that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation be considered by another district judge. *See Jones*at 2-3.

COA GRANTED; JUDGMENT VACATED; CASE REMANDED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

____________________________________

United States of America, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No.: 06-CV-00354-PB

vs. )

) Judge Paul J. Barbadoro

General Electric Company, )

)

Defendant. )

UNITED STATES’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO LIMIT THE PROPOSED TESTIMONY

OF GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY’S EXPERT WITNESS JAMES GIRARD

Plaintiff, the United States of America (the “United States”), hereby moves this Court to

limit the proposed testimony of General Electric Company’s expert witness James Girard. The

relief sought in this motion will conform with Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and First Circuit

case law holding that expert testimony should be reliable and relevant to the facts of a case. 

Further, the relief sought will conform with a previous decision issued by this Court, and will

conserve judicial resources by precluding irrelevant expert testimony at trial on a factual issue

that is unestablished by admissible evidence. The United States attaches a memorandum of law

in support of this Motion to explain why this Court should limit the testimony of GE’s proposed

expert witness James Girard to preclude him from offering testimony regarding the use of PCBs

and/or scrap Pyranol as an ingredient in asphalt roof coating. The United States also attaches a

proposed Order for this Court’s convenience.

Case 1:06-cv-00354-PB Document 57 Filed 08/03/08 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

Respectfully submitted,

 

RONALD J. TENPAS

Assistant Attorney General

Environment and Natural Resources Division

United States Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20530

/s/ Laura J. Rowley 

Dated: 08/03/2008 Laura J. Rowley, Trial Attorney

` Peter M. Flynn, Senior Attorney

Environmental Enforcement Section

United States Department of Justice

P.O. Box 7611

Washington, D.C. 20044-7611

(202) 616-8763

Catherine Adams Fiske, Trial Attorney

Environmental Enforcement Section

United States Department of Justice

One Gateway Center, Suite 616

Newton, MA 02458

THOMAS P. COLANTUONO 

United States Attorney 

District of New Hampshire

Gretchen Leah Witt

Chief, Civil Division

Office of the United States Attorney

53 Pleasant Street, Fourth Floor

Concord, NH 03301-3904

OF COUNSEL:

RuthAnn Sherman

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1

One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (SES)

Boston, MA 02114

Case 1:06-cv-00354-PB Document 57 Filed 08/03/08 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

Certificate of Service

I, Laura J. Rowley, certify that the foregoing Motion, Memorandum and Proposed Order

were filed and served electronically through ECF on Peter Biagetti and William “Mo” Cowan,

counsel to the General Electric Company, on August 3, 2008.

/s/ Laura J. Rowley 

Laura J. Rowley

Case 1:06-cv-00354-PB Document 57 Filed 08/03/08 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sherry Ainsworth, et al.

v. 04-cv-116-SM

Charles M. Souza, et al.

ORDER

Re: Document No. 10, Motion for Approval of Minor’s Request

for Access to Settlement Funds 

Ruling: Granted. In effect, the plaintiff, through her mother

and next friend, seeks to amend the terms of settlement previously

approved by the court by diverting a modest sum designated for

plastic surgery to cover educational trip expenses for the minor

student. Plaintiff claims the minor has decided not to pursue the

plastic surgery, presumably with parental concurrence. Opposing

counsel "takes no position," which the court takes to mean the

payor of the settlement amount specifically designated for plastic

surgery has no objection to applying those funds to a different

purpose benefitting the plaintiff. Given these circumstances, the

motion is granted. 

 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief District Judge

Date: January 25, 2007

cc: Robert J. Consavage, Esq. 

Stephanie Anne Bray, Esq.

Lesley F. Cornell, Esq. 

Case 1:04-cv-00116-SM Document 11 Filed 01/25/07 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Judith Barfield CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-5001.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 24, 2003.

Decided July 31, 2003.

*211Anthony G. Scheer, Rawls, Dickinson & Scheer, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Jack M. Knight, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Judith Barfield Carter appeals the district court’s order sentencing her to fifty-four months imprisonment for uttering forged securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a) (2000). Having reviewed Bar-field’s claims, we affirm.

Barfield first claims that the district court erred in departing upward from the applicable sentencing guidelines range. Our review of the record discloses that the upward departure was justified on several grounds. Barfield’s criminal activity resulted in “reasonably foreseeable, substantial non-monetary harm” to her former employer. *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*§ 2F1.1, comment. (n.11(a)) (2000). It also facilitated the continued distribution of cocaine to Barfield’s son. *See*USSG § 2F1.1, comment. (n.11(b)). Accordingly, we find that the district court did not err in upwardly departing from the applicable sentencing guideline range.*

Barfield also claims that the district court erred by failing to notify her of each potential ground warranting an upward departure. Because this claim was not raised below, we review for plain error. *See United States v. Olano,*507 U.S. 725, 732-34, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). Barfield was notified of the possibility of an upward departure both by the presentence investigation report and by the district court when it declined to accept the plea agreement. Furthermore, our review of the record does not disclose any evidence that the district court’s consideration of several factors to support an upward departure amounted to error, much less error that “‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” *Id.*at 736 (quoting *United States v. Atkinson,*297 U.S. *212157, 160, 56 S.Ct. 391, 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936)). Accordingly, we deny this claim.

We affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.*

*

 We note that, while Carter's appeal was pending, Congress enacted legislation changing the standard of review applicable to departure decisions under the sentencing guidelines. *See*Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 ("PROTECT Act”), Pub. L. No. 108-21, § 401(d), 117 Stat. 650, 670. We need not decide whether the provisions of the PROTECT Act apply to Carter’s case because we would affirm under the new standard of review or the more deferential standard applicable before the Act.
NO. 07-05-0442-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

DECEMBER 28, 2005

______________________________

BRYCE MAEDA, ET AL., APPELLANTS

V.

DAVID AND RUTH TIMMONS, APPELLEES

_________________________________

FROM POTTER COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1;

NO. 93,936-1; HONORABLE W.F. “CORKY” ROBERTS, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a pro se notice of appeal challenging a default judgment, appellants Bryce

Maeda, et al. were notified by letter dated December 9, 2005, to pay the required filing fee

of $125 within ten days, noting that failure to do so might result in dismissal. Unless a party

is excused from paying a filing fee, the Clerk of this Court is required to collect filing fees
2

set by statute or the Supreme Court when an item is presented for filing. See Tex. R. App.

P. 5 and 12.1(b). Although the filing of a notice of appeal invokes this Court’s jurisdiction,

if a party fails to follow the prescribed rules of appellate procedure, the appeal may be

dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b). To date, the fee remains unpaid. Thus, we must

dismiss the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure and with a notice from the Clerk requiring payment of the filing fee.

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

Don H. Reavis

 Justice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mark O’Dell et al.

v. Civil No. 05-366-JL

P. M. MacKay & Sons, Inc. et al.

ORDER OF RECUSAL

Because I am personally familiar with the principals of the

defendant corporation, I hereby recuse myself from presiding over

this case, and request that the clerk reassign this matter. 

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: March 26, 2008

cc: Christopher A. Bandazian, Esq.

Denise Lauretti, Esq.

Jeffrey L. Alitz, Esq.

Thomas Kincaid McCraw, Jr., Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00366-SM Document 21 Filed 03/26/08 Page 1 of 1
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




June 2010


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: October 20, 2010
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------