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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Conservation Law Foundation

v. Case No. 06-cv-45-PB

US Federal Highway Admin. and

NH Dep’t of Transportation

O R D E R

A status conference was held on April 27, 2006. Following

are the deadlines set by the court for discovery and dispositive

motions.

Administrative Record

1. Defendants shall serve and file the Administrative

Record (AR) on or before May 18, 2006.

2. Plaintiff shall serve and file any proposed supplement

to the AR on or before May 25, 2006. Defendants shall file any

motion objecting to plaintiff’s proposed supplement to the AR on

or before June 13, 2006.

Expert Reports

1. Plaintiff shall disclose as soon as practicable the

identity of any experts it has retained and the nature of their

Case 1:06-cv-00045-PB Document 12 Filed 04/27/06 Page 1 of 3
-2-

proposed testimony. 

2. Reports of any expert witnesses retained by plaintiff

shall be served on or before May 25, 2006. 

3. Reports of rebuttal witnesses retained by defendants, if

any, shall be served on or before June 13, 2006.

Discovery

1. All expert and fact discovery shall be completed by June

21, 2006.

Motions for Summary Judgment

1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment shall be filed

on or before July 21, 2006.

2. Defendants’ objection to plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment and defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment shall

be filed on or before August 22, 2006. 

3. Plaintiff’s objection to defendants’ motion for summary

judgment and plaintiff’s reply to defendants’ objection, if any,

shall be filed on or before September 22, 2006.

4. Defendants’ reply to plaintiff’s objection, if any,

shall be filed within 14 days of the filing of plaintiff’s

objection and no later than October 6, 2006.

Case 1:06-cv-00045-PB Document 12 Filed 04/27/06 Page 2 of 3
-3-

5. Oral argument on the parties’ cross-motions for summary

judgment shall be held on October 6, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

April 27, 2006

cc: Arthur B. Cunningham, Esq.

Thomas F. Irwin, Esq.

Benjamin Longstreth, Esq.

Brian C. Toth, Esq.

Andrew B. Livernois, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00045-PB Document 12 Filed 04/27/06 Page 3 of 3
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1645

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to designate certified diabetes

educators recognized by the National Certification Board of Diabetes

Educators as certified providers for purposes of outpatient diabetes education services under part B of the Medicare Program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 26, 2001

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania (for himself and Ms. DEGETTE) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to designate

certified diabetes educators recognized by the National

Certification Board of Diabetes Educators as certified

providers for purposes of outpatient diabetes education

services under part B of the Medicare Program.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1645 IH

1 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTIFIED DIABETES EDU2 CATORS AS CERTIFIED PROVIDERS OF MEDI3 CARE OUTPATIENT SELF-MANAGEMENT

4 TRAINING SERVICES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(qq)(2) of the Social

6 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(qq)(2)) is amended—

7 (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘and in8 cludes a certified diabetes educator who has been

9 recognized by the National Certification Board of

10 Diabetes Educators’’ before the semicolon at the

11 end; and

12 (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting before

13 the period at the end the following: ‘‘or is a certified

14 diabetes educator recognized by the National Certifi15 cation Board of Diabetes Educators’’.

16 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

17 subsection (a) apply to diabetes outpatient self-manage18 ment training services furnished on or after January 1,

19 2002.

Æ
1For reasons fully explained in my Report and Recommendation

issued simultaneously with this Order, I construe Dickner’s

filing as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the

constitutionality of his confinement pursuant to his involuntary

civil commitment.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Eric Dickner

v. Civil No. 07-cv-120-PB

Governor of New Hampshire, and

United States Marshal for the

District of New Hampshire

O R D E R

Before the Court is Eric Dickner’s petition for a writ of

error coram nobis (document no. 1)1. Because Dickner is filing

pro se and in forma pauperis, the matter is before me for

preliminary review to determine, among other things, whether the

petition states any claim upon which relief might be granted. 

See United States District Court for the District of New

Hampshire Local Rule (“LR”) 4.3(d).

 As discussed in the Report and Recommendation issued

simultaneously with this Order, Dickner is directed to

immediately amend his complaint to include all of the claims that

Case 1:07-cv-00120-PB Document 12 Filed 09/28/07 Page 1 of 3
2

he seeks to pursue in his federal habeas corpus petition. 

Dickner may then, if any of his claims are unexhausted,

immediately request a stay of this matter, which will be granted. 

Dickner is then instructed to amend his petition to

demonstrate exhaustion of each of the federal claims, including

the federal nature of the claims, raised in his petition. If the

matter is stayed so that Dickner can complete exhaustion in the

state courts, he must commence state court action to exhaust his

claims within thirty days from the date of the order staying this

action.

Dickner is directed to notify this Court of the status of

his State court proceedings every ninety days during the pendency

of the stay of this action. Once the New Hampshire Supreme Court

has reached a final decision on his claims, Dickner must amend

his petition to notify this Court of that decision. Dickner’s

amended petition should include documentation, such as motions,

petitions, notices of appeal, briefs, or other pleadings

demonstrating that the federal issues presented here were in fact

presented to the State courts for consideration. See Smith v.

Digmon, 434 U.S. 332, 333 (1978) (listing documents which would

enable a federal court to determine whether the grounds

Case 1:07-cv-00120-PB Document 12 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 3
3

supporting the habeas petition had been presented for review in

the State courts)

Any failure to amend the petition or to provide notice to

this Court of the status of his State court proceedings as

directed in this Order, may result in the dismissal of the

petition for failure to demonstrate exhaustion. Any such

dismissal would be without prejudice as it would be procedural

and not based on the merits of Dickner’s claims. See Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000).

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: September 28, 2007

cc: Eric Dickner, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00120-PB Document 12 Filed 09/28/07 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 7365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2156]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

United States Mint


Notification of American Eagle Platinum Proof Coin and American 
Eagle Platinum Uncirculated Coin Price Increases

SUMMARY: The United States Mint is adjusting prices for its American 
Eagle Platinum Proof Coins and American Eagle Platinum Uncirculated 
Coins.
    Pursuant to the authority that 31 U.S.C. 5111(a) and 5112(k) grant 
the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue platinum coins, and to 
prepare and distribute numismatic items, the United States Mint mints 
and issues 2007 American Eagle Platinum Proof and Uncirculated Coins in 
four denominations with the following weights: one-ounce, one-half 
ounce, one-quarter ounce, one-tenth ounce. The United States Mint also 
produces American Eagle Platinum Proof and Uncirculated four-coin sets 
that contain one coin of each denomination. In accordance with 31 
U.S.C. 9701(b)(2)(B), the United States Mint is changing the price of 
these coins to reflect the increase in value of the underlying precious 
metal content of the coins--the result of increases in the market price 
of platinum.
    Accordingly, effective February 1, 2008, the United States Mint 
will commence selling the following 2007 American Eagle Proof and 
Uncirculated Coins according to the following price schedule:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Description                             Price
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Eagle Platinum Proof Coins:
  One-ounce platinum coin..................................    $1,979.95
  One-half ounce platinum coin.............................       999.95
  One-quarter ounce platinum coin..........................       535.95
  One-tenth ounce platinum coin............................       269.95
  Four-coin platinum set...................................     3,629.95
American Eagle Platinum Uncirculated Coins:
  One-ounce platinum coin..................................    $1,869.95
  One-half ounce platinum coin.............................       949.95
  One-quarter ounce platinum coin..........................       499.95
  One-tenth ounce platinum coin............................       229.95
  Four-coin platinum set...................................     3,479.95
------------------------------------------------------------------------


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gloria C. Eskridge, Associate Director 
for Sales and Marketing; United States Mint; 801 Ninth Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500.

    Authority: 31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112 & 9701.

    Dated: January 31, 2008.
Daniel P. Shaver,
Acting Deputy Director, United States Mint.
 [FR Doc. E8-2156 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-02-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-158-01-JD

Gerald Tvelia

O R D E R

Defendant appeared for a bail revocation hearing pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3148. The drug treatment facility rejected defendant

for his lack of adjustment and motivation. 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

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

Case 1:06-cr-00158-JD Document 8 Filed 10/03/06 Page 1 of 2
2

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: October 3, 2006 

cc: Helen W. Fitzgibbon, Esq.

 Bjorn R. Lange, Esq.

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00158-JD Document 8 Filed 10/03/06 Page 2 of 2
215 La. 643

#### STATE v. DEAN.

No. 39366.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 31, 1949.

Robert S. Link and Kermit Frymire, New Orleans, for appellant.

Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Herve Raci-vitch, Dist. Atty., and Robert E. Le-Corgne, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., New Orleans, for appellee.

MOISE, Justice.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of simple burglary, Article 62, Louisiana Criminal Code. On proof that he was a fourth offender, he was sentenced to the penitentiary for life. He has appealed.

The record does not disclose that any bill of exception was filed, nor does it appear that there is any error patent on the face of the papers.

The State filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because of the above recited facts, correctly arguing that there is nothing before the court for determination.

The defense counsel admitted in argument that the defendant received a fair trial but he has asked this court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction and remand this case for a new trial, in accordance with Article 509, par. 5, of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure. In this Article, the Legislature was fixing the procedure to be followed for a new trial in the lower courts. Our supervisory jurisdiction now invoked comes into being not through the Legislature but by constitutional enactment. We are powerless to afford any relief because the law is well settled that where “The record does not show that any bill of exception was reserved during the trial in the lower court, arKl * * * in the absence of .a bill of exception the judgment of the lower court will not be reversed except when there is error patent on the face of the record. We find no such error in this case.” State v. Asher (and authorities therein cited) 213 La. 131, 132, 34 So.2d 399, 400.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.

McCALEB, J., concurs in the decree.

O’NIELL, C. J., takes no part.
#### Chester Foster DYER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc.

Feb. 23, 1955.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1955.

Thomas W. Butler and John T. Graham, Sarasota, for appellant.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and John S. Lloyd, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have examined and considered the record in this case in the light of briefs filed and have also, pursuant to subpara-graph (2) of Section 924.32, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., reviewed the evidence to determine if the interests of justice require a new trial, with the result that we find no reversible error is made to appear and the evidence does not reveal that the ends of justice require a new trial to be awarded.

Affirmed.

MATHEWS, C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS, SEBRING, 'HOBSON and DREW, JJ., concur.
Case 1:05-cv-00079-SM   Document 45   Filed 09/01/06   Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 182 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21843]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,295]


Visteon Corporation Regional Assembly & Manufacturing LLC; Fuel 
Delivery--Climate Group Division Concordia, MO; Notice of Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated August 12, 2008, United Automobile, Aerospace 
& Agricultural Implement Workers of America, International Union, Local 
710 requested administrative reconsideration of the negative 
determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade 
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance 
(ATAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. 
The determination was issued on July 23, 2008. The Notice of 
determination was published in the Federal Register on August 12, 2008 
(73 FR 46924).
    The determination was based on the Department's findings that 
imports of automotive fuel tanks did not contribute importantly to 
worker separations at the subject firm and no shift of production to a 
foreign source occurred.
    In the request for reconsideration the petitioner provided 
additional information regarding the subject firm's customers 
indicating some customers have been certified for TAA and requested the 
Department of Labor investigate for secondary impact as a supplier of a 
component to a TAA certified firm.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record and has determined that the 
Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the 
workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act as secondary 
impact workers.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of September 2008.
 Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-21843 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### H. W. KELLER v. James M. HALL.

No. 8697.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 9, 1938.

'Knapp, Boyle & Thompson, of Tucson, Ariz., and David R. Faries, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Leslie C. Hardy, of Phoenix, Ariz., and Otto E. Myrland and Ben Shantz, both of Tucson, Ariz., for appellee.

Before DENMAN, STEPHENS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon stipulation of respective parties, and their counsel, ordered decree of the District Court herein reversed, and that this cause be remanded to the said District Court for a new trial, that each party bear his own costs on appeal, that a decree be filed and entered accordingly, and mandate of this court herein issue forthwith.
Exhibit
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Cash Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-Q for
the period ended February 28, 2009 and 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, being,
Bruce Korman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Edmund King, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:
 
 (1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 
 
 Dated:
      April 20, 2009/s/
      Bruce Korman
                      
                      /s/
      Edmund KingChief
      Executive Officer
                      
                      Chief
      Financial
Officer
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to Cash Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Cash Technologies,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 32(b)



                                    TXU CORP.
                       Certificate Pursuant to Section 906
                         of Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002
                              CERTIFICATION OF CFO


         The  undersigned,  H. Dan Farell,  Executive Vice President and Chief
 Financial  Officer of TXU Corp. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

    1.   The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
         31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section
         13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

    2.   Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
         respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
         Company.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be
executed this 7th day of May, 2004.




                                            /s/ H. Dan Farell
                                       -------------------------------------
                                       Name:    H. Dan Farell
                                       Title:   Executive Vice President
                                                and Chief Financial Officer






A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to TXU Corp. and will be retained by TXU Corp. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2610

MYRA R. EDWARDS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, AFBCMR; MALCOLM

GROW UNITED STATES AIR FORCE MEDICAL CENTER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA98-4190)

Submitted: January 13, 2000 Decided: January 19, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Myra R. Edwards, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

November 12, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on November 16, 1999. Pursuant to

Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is

the date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as

the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Myra R. Edwards appeals the district court’s order denying her

motion to reopen her case based on newly discovered evidence. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of

the district court. See Edwards v. Department of the Air Force

AFBCMR, No. CA-98-4190 (D. Md. Nov. 16, 1999).* We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED