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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-133-PB

Andre Laventure

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 or 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 negotiate a plea agreement or properly prepare for trial, the

court will continue the trial from December 5, 2006 to March 6,

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-00133-PB Document 12 Filed 12/04/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The November 28, 2006 final pretrial is continued to

February 20, 2007 at 4:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

November 28, 2006

cc: Mark Campbell, Esq.

Debra Walsh, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00133-PB Document 12 Filed 12/04/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Wayne Carter, Toni Celluci

and Stacey Durgin

v. Case No. 07-fp-023

NH Department of Health and

Human Services, Commissioner

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff Toni Cellucci’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis (document no. 3) is hereby granted, but only for the

purpose of waiving the filing fee.

This case has been assigned civil number 07-cv-023-JM.

SO ORDERED.

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: February 2, 2007

cc: Christine D. Lavallee, Esq.

Catharine A. Mallinson, Esq.

Amy Beth Messer, Esq.

Bennett B. Mortell, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00023-SM Document 6 Filed 02/02/2007 Page 1 of 1

Carter et al v. NH Department of Health and Human Services, Commissioner Doc. 6

Dockets.Justia.com
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

PREPARED FOOD PHOTOS, INC.,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JAYJET ENTERPRISES, INC.,

Defendant.

8:23CV195

ORDER

Upon notice of settlement given to the undersigned magistrate judge by counsel for the 

parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. On or before August 7, 2023, the parties shall electronically file a joint stipulation for 

dismissal (or other dispositive stipulation) that will fully dispose of the case;

2. Absent compliance with this order, this case (including all counterclaims and the like) 

may be dismissed without further notice; and

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate the pretrial and trial settings, and any hearings set 

for this case.

Dated this 6th day of July, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cv-00195-BCB-MDN Doc # 10 Filed: 07/06/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 33
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 21, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-2492

Lower Tribunal No. 72-8754

________________

Ricardo Miller,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria Elena Verde, Judge.

Ricardo Miller, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Linda S. Katz, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Before SHEPHERD, LAGOA and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on Ricardo Miller’s Motion for Rehearing. We deny

the motion for rehearing, but withdraw our May 4, 2016 opinion and substitute this

opinion in its place.

Miller appeals the trial court’s September 16, 2015 order denying his

3.850(b)(2) motion for post-conviction relief, arguing he is entitled to resentencing

in conformance with chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, which has been codified

in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes. We reverse and

remand.

Miller was found guilty of first-degree murder following a jury trial and in

1973 was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Miller claims he should be

resentenced because he was a juvenile at the time he committed the crime. Based

on our recent decision in Neely v. State, No. 3D14-1052 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30,

2016), Miller is entitled to judicial review of his sentence.

We therefore reverse Miller’s first-degree murder sentence and remand to

the trial court for the appropriate resentencing under section 775.082(1)(b)(1),

Florida Statutes (2016), section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2014), and section

921.1402, Florida Statutes (2015).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

2
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

             I, Merle A. Waterman, Chief Financial Officer of Rogue Wave Software, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

|                   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   | (1)    | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|                   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|                   | (2)    | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.                                                                                                        |
|                   |
| Dated: August 14, 2002 |

|   | /s/ Merle A. WatermanMerle A. Waterman Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer and Secretary |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Although all federal Defendants have now been dismissed from

1

this action, see Order and Memorandum Granting Federal Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss, (Document #6) (dismissing last federal Defendant),

the Court identifies the case as it was originally filed, see

Complaint.

 In selecting August 31, 2008, as the date for the close of 2

discovery, the Court contemplated that, if the dispositive motions do

not resolve this case, there still should be sufficient time for the

Municipal Defendants to conduct discovery. If this assumption proves

incorrect, the parties may request an extension of the discovery

closure date. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

GERARD BOULANGER, :

 Plaintiff, :

 :

v. : NH 06-cv-00308-ECT

 : RI MC 07-23 T

U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, :

NEW HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT, et al., : 1

 Defendants. :

ORDER

 RE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

On January 15, 2008, the Court conducted a telephonic

pretrial conference in the above matter with Plaintiff Gerard

Boulanger (“Plaintiff”) and Attorney Corey Belobrow, counsel for

Defendants Warren Dowaliby, Jeffrey McPherson, Linda Lee, Bruce

Pelkie, and Donna Roy (the “Municipal Defendants”). Plaintiff

stated that he was ready for trial. Attorney Belobrow indicated

that he wished to file one or more dispositive motions and that,

if such motion(s) did not resolve the entire case, he may need to

conduct some discovery. The Court, desirous of moving this

matter along, ordered that any dispositive motions be filed

within ninety days of the date of this Order and that Plaintiff

would have forty-five (45) days thereafter to file any objections

to the dispositive motion(s). The period for discovery shall

close on August 31, 2008.2

Case 1:06-cv-00308-SM Document 58 Filed 01/16/08 Page 1 of 2
2

So ordered.

ENTER:

/s/ David L. Martin 

DAVID L. MARTIN

United States Magistrate Judge

January 16, 2008

Case 1:06-cv-00308-SM Document 58 Filed 01/16/08 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1558 Introduced in House (IH)]

                                    

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1558

To prohibit States from denying any individual the right to register to 
  vote for an election for Federal office, or the right to vote in an 
  election for Federal office, on the grounds that the individual has 
       been convicted of a Federal crime, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 24, 2001

Mr. Hilliard (for himself, Mr. Filner, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Clyburn, Mrs. 
    Jones of Ohio, Mr. Frank, Ms. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Clay, Mr. 
 Kucinich, Mr. Jefferson, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Wynn, 
Mr. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Lee, Ms. McKinney, 
Mr. Nadler, and Mrs. Christensen) introduced the following bill; which 
             was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit States from denying any individual the right to register to 
  vote for an election for Federal office, or the right to vote in an 
  election for Federal office, on the grounds that the individual has 
       been convicted of a Federal crime, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Voter Registration Protection Act of 
2001''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING DENIAL OF RIGHT TO VOTE IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS ON 
              BASIS OF CONVICTION OF FEDERAL CRIME.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
State may prohibit any individual from registering to vote for an 
election for Federal office, or from voting in an election for Federal 
office, on the grounds that the individual has been convicted of a 
Federal crime (except as provided in subsection (b)).
    (b) Exception for Individuals Remaining in Government Custody or 
Supervision.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any 
individual who is in the custody of, or subject to supervision by, the 
State or the Federal government as a result of the individual's 
conviction of a Federal crime at the time the individual seeks to 
register to vote or vote.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    (a) Federal Crime.--In this section, the term ``Federal crime'' 
means--
            (1) any offense under title 18, United States Code; or
            (2) any offense under chapter 47 of title 10, United States 
        Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice).
    (b) Other Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``election'' and 
``Federal office'' have the meaning given such terms in section 301 of 
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431).

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall apply with respect to elections occurring after 
December 31, 2000.
                                 <all>
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 7073

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
ALVIN OWENS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 3:11

- cr - 00371

- JFA

- 1 ; 3:16

- cv - 02470

- JFA )

Submitted : January 17, 2023 Decided: January 20, 2023

Before KING and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Alvin Owens , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7073 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CUR IAM: Alvin Owens seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party in a civil case, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reop ens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court entered its order on December 21, 2020. Owe ns filed his notice of appeal on September 4, 2022. * Because Owens failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal c ontentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date Owens could have delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). USCA4 Appeal: 22-7073 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Howard Allen,

Petitioner

v. Civil No. 06-cv-277-SM

United States of America,

Respondent

O R D E R

Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate Sentence Under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 on July 26, 2006.

Respondent shall file an answer or other pleadings on or

before August 28, 2006.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

July 28, 2006

cc: Howard Allen, pro se

Peter E. Papps, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00277-SM Document 2 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 1 of 1

Allen v. USA Doc. 2

Dockets.Justia.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-226-PB

Robert Hatch, et al.

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

October 10, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to complete discovery and respond to the

forthcoming superseding indictment. The government and codefendants do 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 October 10, 2007 to January 8, 2008. 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 defendants in a speedy trial

Case 1:06-cr-00226-PB Document 60 Filed 09/25/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The September 24, 2007 final pretrial conference is

continued to December 19, 2008 at 3:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 25, 2007

cc: David Bownes, Esq.

Dana Cole, Esq.

Michael Iacopino, Esq.

Mark Irish, AUSA

Richard Johnston, Esq.

Bjorn Lange, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00226-PB Document 60 Filed 09/25/07 Page 2 of 2
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1218, -1439

ULTIMAX CEMENT MANUFACTURING CORPORATION,

HASSAN KUNBARGI and KA GROUP,

Plaintiffs/Counterclaim DefendantsAppellants,

and

HEARTLAND CEMENT SALES COMPANY,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim DefendantAppellee,

and

RC CEMENT HOLDING COMPANY, SIGNAL MOUNTAIN CEMENT COMPANY,

RIVER CEMENT COMPANY, HERCULES CEMENT COMPANY,

and RC CEMENT COMPANY,

Counterclaim Defendants,

v.

CTS CEMENT MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

(doing business as CTS Cement Manufacturing Company),

EDWARD K. RICE, RAPID-SET PRODUCTS CO. (doing business as RSC, Inc.),

CTS BULK TERMINALS CO., CHEM-COMP SYSTEMS, INC., JACK V. GOODMAN,

PARAGON BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., LAWRENCE B. COLLINS,

BLUE DAISY CEMENT PRODUCTS, INC., KURT CAILLIER,

A & A READY MIXED CONCRETE, INC., RYAN VANDERHOOK, SR.,

SHORT LOAD CONCRETE, INC., SIR-MIX CONCRETE PRODUCTS,

WHITE CAP INDUSTRIES, INC., THE QUIKRETE COMPANIES,

and GRUPO CEMENTOS DE CHIHUAHUA,

Defendants/Counterclaimants-Cross

Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of

California in case no. 02-CV-578, Chief Judge Alicemarie Stotler.
ON MOTION

Before MAYER Circuit Judge.

ORDER

CTS Cement Manufacturing Corporation et al. move for judicial notice of a notice

of allowance within the prosecution file history of U.S. Patent No. 6,406,534 and for

judicial notice of a state court decision. The documents are attached to the motion for

judicial notice.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

FOR THE COURT

JUL 17 2009

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date

cc:	Saied Kashani, Esq.

James W. Geriak, Esq.

Michael Ross Annis, Esq.

William J. Robinson, Esq.

s8

Jan Horbaly

Clerk FILEP

U.S. COUFtT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

JUL 1 7 2009

JAN NORM'S

CLERK

2008-1218, -1439	2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dharma Systems, Inc.,

Plaintiff

V.

Philips Electronics North America Corporation,

Defendant

No. 06-00153 JD

IPROPOSEDI PROTECTIVE ORDE R

Having reviewed the Joint Motion for Protective Order filed by the parties,

together with the Confidentiality Stipulation attached thereto, the Court GRANTS the

Motion, and thus approves and adopts the Confidentiality Stipulation .

SO ORDERED.

Dated : , 2006

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

U.S . District Judge

September 15 /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. 

Case 1:06-cv-00153-JD Document 13 Filed 09/15/06 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit
      3.3**




**CERTIFICATE
      OF AMENDMENT**





**OF
      THE**





**RESTATED
      CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION**





**OF**





**AVENUE
      ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.**


*(a
      Delaware Corporation)*





The
      undersigned, Michael D. Feldman, hereby certifies that:





1.
      He is
      Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Avenue Entertainment Group, Inc. (the
      “Corporation”), a Delaware corporation, and is duly authorized by the unanimous
      written consent of the Board of Directors of the Corporation to execute this
      instrument.





2.
      This
      Certificate of Amendment of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation was duly
      approved by the Corporation’s Board of Directors and duly adopted by written
      consent of the holders of a majority of the shares of common stock of the
      Corporation in accordance with the applicable provisions of Sections 228 and
      242
      of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.





3.
      Article First of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation is hereby amended
      to
      read in its entirety as follows:





“ **FIRST** :
      The
      name of the corporation is alpha-En Corporation (hereinafter referred to as
      the
“Corporation”).”





3.
      Article Fourth, Section A of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation is hereby
      amended to read in its entirety as follows:





“ **A.**  The
      total
      number of shares of all classes of stock which the Corporation shall have
      authority to issue is thirty-eight million (38,000,000), consisting of
      thirty-five million (35,000,000) shares of common stock, par value one cent
      ($.01) per share (the “Common Stock”), one million (1,000,000) shares of class B
      common stock, par value one cent ($.01) per share (the “Class B Common Stock”),
      and two million (2,000,000) shares of preferred stock, par value one cent ($.01)
      per share (the “Preferred Stock”).”





**IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF** ,
      the
      Corporation has caused this Certificate of Amendment of the Restated Certificate
      of Incorporation to be executed this 9 th day of
      June 2008.





By:
            /s/
                Michael D. FeldmanMichael
                D. FeldmanChairman
                andChief
                Executive Officer
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FE BRUARY 16, 2017

NO. 03

- 15

- 00020

- CV

James V. Long, Appellant

v.

Southwest Funding, L.P.; OneWest Bank, FSB; IndyMac Mortgage Services;

and Deutsche Bank National Trust, Co., Appe llee s

APPEAL FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AN D BOURLAND

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BOURLAND

This is an appeal from the orders signed by the tr i a l court on January 21, 2014 and

October 9, 2014. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that

there was no reversible error in the trial court’s orders . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial

court’s orders

. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in

the court below.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Resource Management

Company

v. Civil No. 06-cv-366-JD

Janet Peschong,

Personal Representative

for the Estate of

Frank Gregory, deceased

O R D E R

Plaintiff moves to compel compliance with his third request

for production and with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). Defendant

objected to each request as “overly broad, unduly burdensome and

(as seeking) information that is not discoverable . . .” The

responses were timely delivered. The requests are considered

below.

Requests 1, 6 and 7. Plaintiff states that these requests

have been made before and were intended to seek supplementation. 

Defendant argues that since she is aware of Rule 26(e), the

requests are unnecessary. Plaintiff is entitled to either

supplementation or a straight-forward statement that there are no

supplementary documents. Defendant is ordered to provide one or

the other.

Case 1:06-cv-00366-JD Document 155 Filed 07/29/08 Page 1 of 2
2

Request no. 2. Defendant is ordered to provide the records

offered or to state that there are none.

Request no. 3. Defendant is ordered to provide all Arvest

account records directly or indirectly related to the 67 cases or

to clearly state that there are none.

Request no. 4. Granted.

Request no. 5. Denied as plaintiff has not shown why the

information is discoverable.

Document no. 145. Granted in part, denied in part as set

forth above.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: July 29, 2008

cc: Benjamin C. Riggs, Jr., pro se

Peter G. Callaghan, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00366-JD Document 155 Filed 07/29/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jeffrey Jordan

v. Civil No. 06-cv-222-PB

Verizon Services Corp.

ORDER

Re: Document No. 22, Plaintiff Jordan’s Motion Renewing His

 Request For Discovery

Ruling: DENIED. Discovery was stayed. At the pretrial

counsel was queried as to whether discovery under Rule 56(f) was

necessary and it appeared it was not needed. The present motion

does not request discovery under Rule 56(f), plaintiff has filed

his objection to the defendant’s Rule 56 motion, and counsel

provides no justification to lift the discovery stay.

James R. Muirhead

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Date: October 13, 2006

cc: Penny Sue Dean, Esq.

 Steven E. Hengen, Esq.

 Arthur G. Telegen, Esq.

 

Case 1:06-cv-00222-PB Document 28 Filed 10/13/06 Page 1 of 1