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-220-01-SM

Jose Donain Martinez-Munguia

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 7) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the March 2007 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver

of Speedy Trial Rights not later than January 4, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, his

continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account the

Case 1:06-cr-00220-SM Document 8 Filed 12/21/06 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: February 27, 2007 at 4:30 PM

Jury Selection: March 6, 2007 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

December 21, 2006 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Jennifer C. Davis, Esq. 

 Jonathan Saxe, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00220-SM Document 8 Filed 12/21/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mark R. Mandeville

v. Civil No. 05-cv-92-JD

Carole A. Anderson, et al.

O R D E R

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants'

motions to dismiss Mark Mandeville's Americans with Disabilities

Act claims. The claims against individual defendants were

dismissed, and the claims were deemed to be claims against the

Merrimack County Department of Corrections. The defendants move

for reconsideration, contending that neither the Department of

Corrections nor the county is a party in this case.

Mandeville initiated the case with a pro se complaint and is

proceeding in forma pauperis. He is now represented by counsel. 

The record is not clear but suggests that Mandeville intended to

sue the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent of the

Department of Corrections in their official capacities. As held

in the previous order, Mandeville's ADA claims are deemed to be

brought against the Department of Corrections. Because Carole

Anderson and Richard Doucette were no longer serving in their

official capacities when they were served, however, it is unclear

whether service had been made on the Department of Corrections.

Case 1:05-cv-00092-JD Document 82 Filed 10/10/07 Page 1 of 2
2

Therefore, counsel shall confer and determine whether

service had been made on the Department of Corrections and, if

not, whether the Department will waive service under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 4(d). Mandeville is allowed thirty days from

the date of this order to file notice that service has been made

on the Department of Corrections. The Department shall file its

answer within the time allowed under the federal rules.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendants' motion for

reconsideration (document no. 74) is denied. Service on the

Department of Corrections shall be completed as provided in this

order.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

October 10, 2007

cc: W. Kirk Abbott, Jr., Esquire

Charles P. Bauer, Esquire

John a. Curran, Esquire

Elizabeth L. Hurley, Esquire

Lisa Lee, Esquire

Daniel J. Mullen, Esquire

Michael J. Sheehan, Esquire

Ralph Suozzo, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00092-JD Document 82 Filed 10/10/07 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1327 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1327

 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit H-2A workers 
from bringing law suits against employers except in the State in which 
      the employer resides or has its principal place of business.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2001

Mr. Whitfield introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit H-2A workers 
from bringing law suits against employers except in the State in which 
      the employer resides or has its principal place of business.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON VENUE OF SUITS BROUGHT AGAINST FARMERS BY H-2A 
              WORKERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 218(h) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1188(h)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
new paragraph:
    ``(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an H-2A worker 
may not bring an action under State or Federal law arising out of 
employment authorized under this section against the employer except in 
the State in which the employer resides or has its principal place of 
business.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to actions commenced after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Lisa Whiting-Thompson, as Parent

and Next Friend of Travis Whiting,

and Lisa Whiting-Thompson, Individually

v. Civil No. 06-cv-86-JD

Robert V. Dallas, M.D., Paul Rummo, D.O.,

and Littleton Orthopaedics, P.D.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

Pursuant to Local Rule 17.1, the court has reviewed the

plaintiffs' assented to petition for approval of settlement on

behalf of a minor, the plaintiffs' assented to motion requesting

approval of attorneys fees, and the plaintiffs' assented to

supplemental motion in support of assented to motion requesting

approval of attorneys fees, along with the exhibits attached

thereto.

The court grants the plaintiffs' petition, approves the

settlement terms set forth in the petition, and grants the

plaintiffs' motion and supplemental motion requesting approval of

attorneys fees. The court finds that there is good cause to

approve attorneys fees as submitted, due to the complex nature of

this malpractice case, the fact that liability was contested and

very much an issue, the risk, uncertainty and expense undertaken

Case 1:06-cv-00086-JD Document 22 Filed 08/16/07 Page 1 of 2
2

by counsel in prosecuting the case, counsel's skill and trial

experience, and the time expended in achieving a favorable

result.

The parties are ordered to comply with all of the terms and

conditions as set forth in the petition. The court retains

jurisdiction of this case in order to enforce the terms and

conditions of the petition should that become necessary.

The parties have moved to seal the petition and the motion

and supplemental motion for attorneys fees, in perpetuity,

because there exists a confidentiality agreement between the

parties. Absent extraordinary circumstances, which based on

information currently available to the court do not exist in this

case, the court will not seal the documents. In lieu of sealing

the documents and in order to preserve the confidentiality

agreement between the parties, the petition for approval of

settlement, the motion and supplemental motion requesting

approval of attorneys fees, and the joint motions to seal these

documents will be returned to counsel for the plaintiff.

The parties shall have thirty days to comply with Local Rule

41.1.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

August 16, 2007

cc: Peter J. Duffy, Esquire

Steven E. Hengen, Esquire

Patrick T. Jones, Esquire

Michael A. Pignatelli, Esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00086-JD Document 22 Filed 08/16/07 Page 2 of 2
#### Rigoberto GONZALEZ-QUEVEDO, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 02-70453. INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 7, 2002.*

Decided July 28, 2003.

*672Before CHOY, FERGUSON, and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Rigoberto Gonzalez-Quevedo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

We review the BIA’s determination that an applicant has not proven eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal for substantial evidence. *Cardenas v. INS,*294 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir.2002); *MolinarEstrada v. INS,*293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.2002). Therefore, we must uphold its decision unless Gonzalez-Quevedo shows that the evidence not only supports reversal, but compels it. *Pedro-Mateo v. INS,*224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992)).

Because Gonzalez-Quevedo has failed to produce any evidence showing that the guerrillas have imputed or would impute any political beliefs to him, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that he failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of imputed political opinion. Even assuming, *arguendo,*that it is true that guerrilla organizations forcibly attempted to recruit Gonzalez-Quevedo, that fact is insufficient to compel a finding of persecution on account of political opinion where, as here, there is no evidence of discriminatory purpose. *See Pedro-Mateo,*224 F.3d at 1151 (citing *Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. at 482-83, 112 S.Ct. 812).

Gonzalez-Quevedo does not satisfy the standard for asylum, therefore, he necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Pedro-Mateo,*224 F.3d at 1150.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT
        32.2
  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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Maxco, Inc. (the
        “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lawrence O. Fields, as
        Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        that:
  (1)
        This
        Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)
        Information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 Date: 
                    April 3, 2006/s/ Lawrence
                    O. FieldsLawrence
                    O. FieldsChief
                    Financial Officer
  A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
        and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
  26
42

C.7. Local Trends in Farm Income and Expenditures as Reported by Banks in Each RegionPercent

Farm income Farm household spending Farm capital sp

Quarter Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same 

Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2000: Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n. Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n. Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.2001: Q1... 38 43 20 21 67 13 45 4 Q2... 35 47 18 22 69 9 50 4 Q3... 28 59 13 16 75 9 38 5 Q4... 49 39 12 29 64 7 57 32002: Q1... 8 32 60 16 63 21 10 3 Q2... 58 41 2 19 68 12 49 4 Q3... 58 33 9 34 60 6 55 4 Q4... 48 22 30 27 56 17 46 32003: Q1... 52 27 20 30 52 18 53 3

Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2000: Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n. Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n. Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.2001: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n. Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n. Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n. Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.2002: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n. Q2... 65 33 2 35 54 11 63 3 Q3... 70 27 3 33 56 11 65 3 Q4... 63 30 8 40 50 9 65 32003: Q1... 71 24 5 44 48 8 67 3 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District. n.a. Not available. Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  XXII  Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form  10-Q
for  the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
XXI,  Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership,  and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
XXI,  Inc., each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 operations of the Partnership.


                          /s/ ROBERT P JOHNSON
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              August 11, 2009



                          /s/ PATRICK W KEENE
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              August 11, 2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven Bromley

v. Civil No. 06-cv-181-JD

State of Utah, et al.

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated May 17, 2006, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

June 9, 2006 /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: Steven Bromley, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00181-JD Document 6 Filed 06/09/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Nicole Corin Christian

v. Civil No. 05-cv-356-JD

Travis W. Anderson, et al.

O R D E R

 Plaintiff moves to reconsider my order on defendant’s motion

to compel. Document no. 61. The motion (document no. 68) is

denied. Plaintiff did not serve responses or an objection to the

requests for admission and, therefore, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36

they are deemed admitted. Her motion to stay until a decision on

the motion to dismiss was mooted by Judge DiClerico’s order on

the motion. Any objections to the interrogatories were waived by

the failure to answer within thirty days of service and plaintiff

was ordered to answer. Plaintiff has not shown good cause as

ordered for her failure to provide timely discovery. Counsel’s

fees are reasonable and plaintiff is ordered to pay them within

ten (10) days. 

Case 1:05-cv-00356-JD Document 73 Filed 05/29/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The motion (document no. 68) is denied as set forth above. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 29, 2007

cc: Nicole Corin Christian, pro se

 Charles P. Bauer, Esq.

 Lisa Lee, Esq.

 Daniel J. Mullen, Esq.

 Frank H. Olmstead, Esq.

 Nancy J. Smith, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00356-JD Document 73 Filed 05/29/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Nordica S.p.A. et al.

v. Case No. 06-cv-451-PB

 

Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.

O R D E R

The motion to amend (Doc. No. 62) is granted. The time for

responding to the amended complaint is stayed until January 3,

2010. The parties shall meet and confer and attempt to resolve

their competing claims on or before December 3, 2009. If the

case is not resolved by December 3, 2009, the court will hold a

telephone conference to discuss the appointment of a mediator. 

If the case is not resolved on or before January 3, 2010,

the defendants shall respond to the amended complaint within the

time allowed by the rules and, on or before February 3, 2010, the

parties shall file cross motions for summary judgment addressing

the contract interpretation issues discussed at the November 2,

2009 status conference. Objections to the motions for summary

judgment shall be filed on or before February 17, 2010. No

replies shall be permitted. 

Case 1:06-cv-00451-PB Document 69 Filed 11/03/09 Page 1 of 2
-2-

The court will resolve the motions for summary judgment on

an expedited basis and the case shall be set for trial during the

March 2010 trial period. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

November 3, 2009

cc: Burton S. Ehrlich, Esq.

James F. Laboe, Esq.

Jonathan A. Lax, Esq.

L. Rex Sears, Esq.

Larry R. Laycock, Esq.

Robyn L. Phillips, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00451-PB Document 69 Filed 11/03/09 Page 2 of 2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00037-CR

Guy SHEPPARD,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 274th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-0205-CR

Honorable Gary L. Steel, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. 

SIGNED June 11, 2014.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

DAVID PUZIO , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 3034

[ August 11, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Paul L. Backman , Judge; L.T. Case No. 94

- 12537CF10A

.
Ashley D. Kay and Kevin J. Kulik, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Sr. Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach , for appellee.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

G ERBER , J

.

In Puzio v. State , 278 So. 3d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (“ Puzio I ”), we conclude d the trial court erred when resentencing the d ef endant under section 775.082(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2017), because “no jury has found beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victims.” Id. at 85

- 86. We further held the error was harmful because “[t]he record does not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim[s].” Id. at 86. However, rather than remanding for a de novo resentencing under sec tion 775.082(1)(b)2., Florida Statutes (2017), pursuant to Williams v. State , 242 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2018), we remanded for ministerial correction of the defendant’s sentences under section 775.082(1)(b)2. because, during the resentencing hearing, t he trial court already had stated “it equally finds a sixty

- year sentence appropriate under section 775.082(1)(b)(2) in light of the facts of this case

, ” thus con clusively show ing the trial court would have imposed the same sentence. Id.In Puzio v. State

, No. SC19

- 1511

, 2021 WL 2583946 (Fla. June 24, 2021) (“ Puzio II ”), our supreme court quash ed Puzio I and remand ed to this
court with instructions to remand to the trial court for a de novo resentencing as required by Williams

. Puzio II , 2021 WL 2583946, at *1. Our supreme court reason ed that, despite the trial court’s statement, a ministerial correction of the defendant’s sentences under section 775.082(1)(b)2. would fall short of the de novo resentencing which Williams requires

. Id.

Based on the foregoing, we reverse and remand to the trial court for a de novo resentencing as required by Williams on the first degree murder
counts under section 775. 082(1)(b)2 ., Florida Statutes ( 2017 )

. We af firm on the defendant’s other arguments with out further discussion

.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for de novo resentencing as instructed.

C ONNER , C. J., and M ETZGER , E LIZABETH , Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

No further motion s for rehearing shall be permitted

.
(logo) CWCapital

          ASSET MANAGEMENT

 

 

**ANNUAL COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

Benchmark 2018-B8 Mortgage Trust, Commercial

 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2018-B8

(the “Trust”)

 

I,James P. Shevlin, on behalf of CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as SpecialServicer (the “Certifying Servicer”), certify to J.P. Morgan ChaseCommercial Mortgage Securities Corp. and its officers, directors andaffiliates, and with the knowledge and intent that they will rely upon thiscertification, that:

 

1.       I (or Servicing Officers under mysupervision) have reviewed the Certifying Servicer’s activities during thepreceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and the CertifyingServicer’s performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement; and

 

2.       To the best of my knowledge, based on suchreview, the Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under thePooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respects during the ReportingPeriod.

 

 

Date:  March 1, 2019

 

 

CWCAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENTLLC, as Special

Servicer

 

 

By: /s/ James P. Shevlin

Name: James P. Shevlin

Title: President/ChiefOperating Officer