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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Greg Schillinger

v. Civil No. 07-cv-309-PB

State of New Hampshire, et al.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff’s complaint is entitled “Motion for Emergency

Intervention” (Document no. 1). Plaintiff states that his mother

has had a severe stroke and that her emergency medical needs are

not being met by Wentworth Douglas Hospital. he further

complains that his visitation furlough was cancelled and that he

needs an “emergency release” to help his mother. The court

recognizes and understands plaintiff’s desire for emergency

intervention. Because of the nature of the request and

plaintiff’s immediate needs, the court has given expedited

consideration to this matter.

To the extent plaintiff seeks to bring this motion on behalf

of his mother, he can not do so in this federal court. “A pro se

party may not authorize another person who is not a member of the

bar of this court to appear on his or her behalf. This includes

Case 1:07-cv-00309-PB Document 2 Filed 09/28/07 Page 1 of 3
2

a ... relative...” See United States District Court for the

District of New Hampshire Local Rule (“LR”) 83.6(G). His

standing, if any, would only be in a state court.

Further, to the extent he seeks an emergency release or

furlough it is the state court, not this court, which would have

jurisdiction to issue it.

I recommend the case be dismissed without prejudice to

plaintiff’s right to seek relief in state court.

If this Report and Recommendation is approved, the claims as

identified herein will be considered for all purposes to be the

claims raised in the complaint. If the plaintiff disagrees with

the identification of the claims herein, he must do so by

objection filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this Report

and Recommendation, or he must properly move to amend the

complaint. 

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of 

Case 1:07-cv-00309-PB Document 2 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 3
3

Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992); United

States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986). 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: September 28, 2007

cc: Greg Schillinger, pro se

Nancy Smith, Esq.

John Vinson, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00309-PB Document 2 Filed 09/28/07 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Robert Rockwood

and Roxana Marchosky

v. Civil No. 08-cv-168-JL

SKF USA Inc.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

On June 15, 2010, this court held a structuring conference

in this matter. As a result of the discussions with counsel at

that conference, the court makes the following rulings:

1. The plaintiffs shall file their planned motion to amend

the complaint on or before June 25, 2010. The defendant shall

file any objection to the motion on or before July 5, 2010. 

There shall be no reply or surreply.

2. Within ten days of the court’s ruling on the motion to

amend, the plaintiffs shall file an objection to the defendant’s

pending motion for sanctions (document no. 125). The defendant

shall file its reply, if any, within seven days of the

plaintiff’s objection. There shall be no surreply.

3. Because the plaintiffs will be filing a new objection

to the defendant’s motion for sanctions, their pending objection

(document no. 141) is STRICKEN. Insofar as the objection seeks

sanctions against the defendant, that request for relief is

Case 1:08-cv-00168-JL Document 172 Filed 06/16/10 Page 1 of 2
DENIED because it was not presented in an independent motion. 

See L.R. 7.1(a)(1). The defendant’s motion to strike the

objection (document no. 147) is therefore DENIED as moot.

4. Because the parties have stipulated to a procedure for

the plaintiffs’ production of their e-mail passwords, the

defendant’s motion to compel that information (document no. 117)

is DENIED as moot.

5. At this time, the court takes no action on the

plaintiffs’ proposals for additional discovery, videotaped

depositions, or the designation of additional expert witnesses as

set forth in their structuring conference memorandum. Should the

plaintiffs wish to pursue any of these forms of relief, they

shall contact the deputy clerk to arrange a telephone conference

with the court. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: June 16, 2010

cc: William E. Aivalikles, Esq.

Steven M. Gordon, Esq.

Donald C. Crandlemire, Esq.

David Richman, Esq.

Matthew R. Williams, Esq.

Gregory A. Moffett, Esq.

Peter G. Callaghan, Esq.

2

Case 1:08-cv-00168-JL Document 172 Filed 06/16/10 Page 2 of 2
B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                             
                                 Estimated volume                 Share of total non-real-estate farm loans
                              (millions of dollars)                               (percent)
                      ______________________________________     ____________________________________________

Year                  Total     Q1      Q2      Q3       Q4      Total      Q1        Q2        Q3       Q4
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                             
1992......    |          82      14      20      29       18      .237      .039      .062     .083      .050
1993......    |          54       7      16       5       26      .155      .020      .049     .014      .069
1994......    |          69      10      11      15       33      .187      .026      .032     .037      .082
1995......    |          51      -2      14      13       25      .131     -.004      .039     .032      .061
1996......    |          95      16      27      24       30      .240      .039      .070     .058      .071
1997......    |          93       6      19      19       50      .230      .014      .049     .045      .112
1998......    |          87       4      15      24       45      .198      .008      .036     .051      .095
1999......    |         126      18      37      35       36      .280      .040      .086     .078      .080
2000......    |         108      11      17      34       45      .259      .027      .041     .075      .098
2001......    |         308      67      53     140       48      .656      .142      .118     .294      .101
2002......    |         221      40      50      58       73      .471      .085      .114     .124      .157
2003......    |        n.a.      34      35      48     n.a.      n.a.      .074      .080     .108      n.a.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude
foreign results for large banks that report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks
that are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal definition of agricultural loans.
Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.

23
Exhibit 32(b)



TXU CORP.

Certificate Pursuant to Section 906

of Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002

CERTIFICATION OF CFO



The undersigned, Kirk R. Oliver, 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 September 30, 2005 (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 4th day of November, 2005.



/s/    KIRK R.
OLIVERName:

Kirk R. OliverTitle:

Executive Vice Presidentand 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1727 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1727

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 16 (legislative day, May 15), 2001

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 to provide for consistent 
treatment of survivor benefits for public safety officers killed in the 
                             line of duty.

    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 ``Fallen Hero Survivor Benefit 
Fairness Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. CONSISTENT TREATMENT OF SURVIVOR BENEFITS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY 
              OFFICERS KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY.

    Subsection (b) of section 1528 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 
(Public Law 105-34) is amended by striking the period and inserting ``, 
and to amounts received in taxable years beginning after December 31, 
2001, with respect to individuals dying on or before December 31, 
1996.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 15, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                              
                                 Estimated volume                  Share of total non-real-estate farm loans
                               (millions of dollars)                               (percent)
                      _______________________________________     ____________________________________________

Year                  Total     Q1      Q2       Q3       Q4      Total      Q1        Q2        Q3       Q4
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                              
1992......    |          82      14      20       29       18      .237      .039      .062     .083      .050
1993......    |          54       7      16        5       26      .155      .020      .049     .014      .069
1994......    |          69      10      11       15       33      .187      .026      .032     .037      .082
1995......    |          51      -2      14       13       25      .131     -.004      .039     .032      .061
1996......    |          95      16      27       24       30      .240      .039      .070     .058      .071
1997......    |          93       6      19       19       50      .230      .014      .049     .045      .112
1998......    |          87       4      15       24       45      .198      .008      .036     .051      .095
1999......    |         126      18      37       35       36      .280      .040      .086     .078      .080
2000......    |         108      11      17       34       45      .259      .027      .041     .075      .098
2001......    |         308      67      53      140       48      .656      .142      .118     .294      .101
2002......    |         221      40      50       58       73      .471      .085      .114     .124      .157
2003......    |        n.a.      34      35     n.a.     n.a.      n.a.      .074      .080     n.a.      n.a.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude
foreign results for large banks that report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks
that are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal definition of agricultural loans.
Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.

23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michael DeAngelis

v. No. 06-mc-44

NH State Prison, Warden, et al.

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,

but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended, the filing fee must

be paid as follows: the sum of $4.00 is due no later than

November 1, 2006. In addition, 20% of each preceding month’s

income credited to plaintiff’s account to be remitted by the New

Hampshire State Prison when the amount in the account exceeds

$10.00 until the sum of $39.00 has been paid. Failure to pay the

fee as ordered will result in dismissal of the action without

prejudice. In all other respects plaintiff’s request for in

forma pauperis has been granted. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 4, 2006

cc: Michael DeAngelis, pro se

 Bonnie S. Reed, Financial Administrator

 New Hampshire State Prison, Inmate Accounts

Case 1:06-mc-00044-PB Document 4 Filed 10/04/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-79-01-PB

Dorothy Collins, et al.

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

January 9, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time as defendant is currently ill and unable to

proceed with a plea hearing or trial. 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 or a plea hearing,

the court will continue the trial from January 9, 2007 to

February 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 abovestated 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-00079-PB Document 55 Filed 01/05/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

January 5, 2007

cc: Debra Walsh, AUSA

Paul Pappas, Esq.

Michael Ramsdell, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00079-PB Document 55 Filed 01/05/07 Page 2 of 2
#### STERLING PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. CLEVELAND TRUST COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 7401.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 9, 1938.

John H. Bruninga, of St. Louis, Mo., and Kwis, Hudson & Kent, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.

Evans & McCoy and Richey & Watts, all of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee.

Before HICKS and SIMONS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The present appeal is from an order denying the appellant’s motion for a preliminary injunction to restrain the appellee from proceeding in a patent infringement suit in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and from bringing infringement suits against the appellant’s customers, and from notifying any of them of any claim of infringement of patents enumerated in the bill or those involved in three infringement suits then currently pending in the District Court or in this court upon appeal, and it appear*1020ing to us that the claim of irreparable injury pending the hearing of the cause below upon its merits is not so clearly established as to warrant the conclusion that the District Court abused its discretion in denying it, since it appears that the cause in the Eastern District of New York proceeded to final decree on the 19th of October, 1936, more than fifteen months after the entry of the order below, without any effort on the part of the appellant to expedite this appeal or the hearing thereon in this court, and since it also appears that some of the patents involved in the contemporaneous equity suits pending in the District Court below have now been adjudicated in this court and held valid and infringed by at least one of the appellant’s structures (Cleveland Trust Co. et al. v. Schriber-Schroth Co., 92 F.2d 330), and since this court by reason of its conclusion as to the failure of a showing of irreparable injury finds it unnecessary to express any view as to the issue of res adjudicata controlling the decision below and does not express any view in that respect, and since the order of the District Court must under familiar rules be sustained if right for any reason, it is hereby ordered that the order of the District Court be, and it is, hereby affirmed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent’ herewith.
181 La. 1036

#### STATE v. HADDAD.

No. 33306.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 1, 1935.

*803Prank A. Blanchard, of Shreveport, for relator.

Gastón L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., James U. Galloway, Dist. Atty., of New Orleans, and Less-ley P. Gardiner, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., for the State.

ODOM, Justice.

Relator was prosecuted for' sending his minor child to a public school without presenting satisfactory evidence of vaccination or that the child was immune from the disease of smallpox, in violation of an ordinance adopted by the parish board of health.

Relator moved to quash the indictment on the ground that the ordinance under which the prosecution was instituted is unconstitu--tional. The motion to quash was overruled, relator was tried, convicted, and sentenced to pay a fine of $10, and, in default of the payment of the fine, was ordered to he imprisoned for ten days.

Relator then filed a motion in arrest of judgment on the ground that there was no valid law in the state of Louisiana authorizing such conviction and sentence, and reiterating his plea that the ordinance of the board of health under which he was prosecuted is unconstitutional. His motion in arrest was overruled. Whereupon he applied to this court for writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition, which were granted.

In his return, the trial judge has called our attention to that part of section 10 of article 7 of the Constitution of 1921 which gives this court appellate jurisdiction in all cases “where the legality, or constitutionality of any fine, forfeiture, or penalty imposed by a parish, municipal corporation, board, or subdivision of the State shall be in contest, whatever may be the amount thereof.”

He suggests that the writs be recalled, for the reason that this court has appellate jurisdiction. Since the writs were granted, the Attorney General has filed a brief in which he has joined the district judge in suggesting that the writs be recalled.

This court does not exercise its supervisory powers in cases where a defendant has a right of appeal. State v. Rost, 49 La. Ann. 1451, 22 So. 421; State v. Skinner, 33 La. Ann. 255, 257; State v. Robinson, 38 La. Ann. 968:

The legality or constitutionality of the penalty imposed being in contest, the relator unquestionably has the right of appeal in this ease. City of New Orleans v. New Orleans Butchers’ Co-Op. Abattoir, Inc., 153 La. 536, 96 So. 113; City of New Orleans v. Ernst, 155 La. 426, 99 So. 391.

It is therefore ordered that the writs heretofore granted be, and they are now, recalled, and relator’s application is dismissed.
B.6. Distribution of Agricultural Banks by the Share of Their Total Loans that are Nonperforming

Percent

Less than 20.0 percent

2.0 2.0-4.9 5.0-9.9 10.0-14.9 15.0-19.9 and

Period Total percent percent percent percent percent over

1992...... 100.0 76.2 18.8 3.9 .8 .2 .0

1993...... 100.0 80.7 15.8 2.8 .6 .1 ...

1994...... 100.0 85.5 12.3 1.9 .2 .1 .0

1995...... 100.0 83.4 14.0 2.1 .3 .1 .1

1996...... 100.0 81.9 15.4 2.3 .2 .1 .1

1997...... 100.0 84.5 12.9 2.5 .1 .1 .0

1998...... 100.0 81.7 15.1 2.8 .3 ... .1

1999...... 100.0 84.8 12.6 2.4 .3 .0 ...

2000...... 100.0 85.0 12.8 1.8 .3 ... ...

2001...... 100.0 80.0 17.3 2.5 .1 .0 ...

2002...... 100.0 79.7 17.1 2.8 .2 .1 ...

1994: Q1... 100.0 79.3 16.7 3.3 .5 .1 ...

 Q2... 100.0 80.9 16.2 2.4 .4 .1 ...

 Q3... 100.0 83.5 13.7 2.4 .3 .0 .0

 Q4... 100.0 85.5 12.3 1.9 .2 .1 .0

1995: Q1... 100.0 81.6 15.3 2.7 .2 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 82.0 15.0 2.6 .2 .1 .1

 Q3... 100.0 82.8 14.3 2.4 .3 .0 .1

 Q4... 100.0 83.4 14.0 2.1 .3 .1 .1

1996: Q1... 100.0 78.1 17.4 3.6 .6 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 78.0 17.2 4.0 .6 .1 .1

 Q3... 100.0 79.2 17.1 3.1 .5 .1 .1

 Q4... 100.0 81.9 15.4 2.3 .2 .1 .1

1997: Q1... 100.0 79.1 16.7 3.7 .4 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 80.5 15.8 3.2 .3 ... .1

 Q3... 100.0 81.8 15.2 2.7 .2 .1 .1

 Q4... 100.0 84.5 12.9 2.5 .1 .1 .0

1998: Q1... 100.0 80.6 16.3 2.8 .1 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 80.8 15.9 2.9 .3 .1 .0

 Q3... 100.0 80.3 16.2 3.1 .3 .1 .0

 Q4... 100.0 81.7 15.1 2.8 .3 ... .1

1999: Q1... 100.0 77.2 17.8 4.5 .5 .0 .0

 Q2... 100.0 78.7 16.9 3.8 .6 ... ...

 Q3... 100.0 80.4 15.9 3.4 .3 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 84.8 12.6 2.4 .3 .0 ...

2000: Q1... 100.0 81.8 14.8 2.9 .5 .0 ...

 Q2... 100.0 82.2 15.1 2.4 .3 .0 .0

 Q3... 100.0 83.0 14.9 1.7 .4 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 85.0 12.8 1.8 .3 ... ...

2001: Q1... 100.0 80.3 16.9 2.6 .2 .1 ...

 Q2... 100.0 80.2 16.6 3.0 .2 .1 ...

 Q3... 100.0 78.7 17.8 3.2 .3 ... ...

 Q4... 100.0 80.0 17.3 2.5 .1 .0 ...

2002: Q1... 100.0 76.8 19.3 3.7 .2 .0 ...

 Q2... 100.0 76.8 19.6 3.1 .4 .0 ...

 Q3... 100.0 77.8 18.8 3.2 .2 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 79.7 17.1 2.8 .2 .1 ...

2003: Q1... 100.0 75.4 19.9 4.1 .3 .2 .0

 Q2... 100.0 76.2 19.2 4.0 .4 .1 .1

 Note. Nonperforming loans are loans in nonaccruing status or past due 90 days or more. Renegotiated or restructured

loans in compliance with the modified terms are not included. Agricultural banks are defined in the introduction to section B.

Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

 ... Not applicable.

26
#### N. O. NELSON COMPANY v. Richard C. TATE.

No. 2375.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

April 24, 1942.

Robert R. Stone, of Lake Charles, for appellant.

Cline, Thompson, Lawes & Cavanaugh, of Lake Charles, for appellee.

LE BLANC, Judge.

For the reasons this day handed down in the companion suit of Norman F. Hicks v. the same defendant, 7 So.2d 737, which had been consolidated for argument and submission with this suit, it is now ordered that the judgment appealed from in this case be and the same is hereby affirmed at the costs of the appellant herein.

DORE and OTT, JJ., concur.