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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In re Tyco International, Ltd.

Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 1335) CASE NO. 02-md-1335-B

SUGGESTION OF REMAND

Pretrial proceedings on common matters have been

substantially completed in Rosemary Stumpf and Newby v. Neil R.

Garvey, et al., 03-cv-1352-B, Ballard v. Tyco International,

Ltd., et al., 04-cv-1336-B, Hall v. Tyco, et al., 05-cv-1336-B,

and Jasin v. Tyco, et al., 05-cv-1337-B. The parties in these

cases are in agreement that they should be remanded to the courts

where they were originally filed, and the court has determined 

that a remand order will best serve the expeditious resolution of

these cases. Accordingly, the court recommends that the Judicial

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remand the above-referenced

cases to the courts in which they were originally filed. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

November 17, 2008

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:05-cv-01336-PB Document 6 Filed 01/16/09 Page 1 of 1
33

C.2. Expected Farm Loan Volume for the Next Quarter, Compared with a Year EarlierPercent

Purpose of loan

Total Feeder cattle Dairy Crop storage Operating 

Quarter Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Hig

Seventh (Chicago) Federal Reserve District (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*)

2000: Q4... 16 53 31 18 67 15 28 66 7 25 66 9 7 42 2001: Q1... 13 54 33 14 70 16 25 68 7 29 61 10 8 43  Q2... 20 57 23 22 65 13 22 71 7 29 61 9 12 53  Q3... 23 59 18 24 67 9 22 72 6 27 66 7 13 60  Q4... 19 53 28 24 68 8 16 77 6 28 67 5 12 47 2002: Q1... 19 54 27 25 68 7 20 72 8 27 67 6 11 49  Q2... 18 63 19 32 64 3 20 73 7 28 65 6 12 60  Q3... 23 54 23 32 64 3 26 67 7 25 69 6 16 49  Q4... 19 58 23 21 70 9 20 74 6 23 73 4 14 50 

Eleventh (Dallas) Federal Reserve District (LA*, NM*, TX)

2000: Q4... 17 60 23 13 64 22 15 83 1 16 78 6 12 57 2001: Q1... 21 57 22 17 65 18 18 77 5 14 83 3 17 57  Q2... 24 54 21 16 64 20 18 78 5 14 77 9 18 60  Q3... 22 60 18 19 63 19 18 77 5 15 80 5 18 63  Q4... 24 63 13 18 67 16 16 78 6 11 81 8 19 64 2002: Q1... 29 55 16 25 65 10 18 75 7 18 77 5 25 59  Q2... 29 60 11 37 58 5 20 74 6 20 74 6 23 58  Q3... 24 63 13 30 60 10 20 73 7 16 76 9 21 58  Q4... 22 66 12 26 58 15 19 75 6 18 76 6 20 64 

Fifth (Richmond) Federal Reserve District (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)

2000: Q4... 19 71 10 13 80 7 25 75 0 13 69 19 14 77 2001: Q1... 17 70 13 12 88 0 18 82 0 10 81 10 8 72  Q2... 27 70 3 17 83 0 26 74 0 19 73 8 13 88  Q3... 40 55 5 28 72 0 27 73 0 6 76 18 8 88  Q4... 25 67 8 30 70 0 18 76 6 29 57 14 19 74 2002: Q1... 19 70 11 16 76 8 20 72 8 18 79 4 21 69  Q2... 31 62 8 27 73 0 23 77 0 29 67 4 33 63  Q3... 30 57 13 22 78 0 22 78 0 21 63 16 33 59  Q4... 27 53 20 15 69 15 21 71 7 40 53 7 30 50 
34

C.2. Expected Farm Loan Volume for the Next Quarter, Compared with a Year Earlier (continued)Percent

Purpose of loan

Feeder livestock Other intermediate1 Farm real estate Other operating2 Far

Quarter Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower 

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

2000: Q4... 15 69 16 23 74 3 39 55 6 9 78 13 43 2001: Q1... 14 76 10 18 76 6 28 62 11 7 69 23 34  Q2... 17 75 8 19 76 6 28 64 8 6 67 27 35  Q3... 17 77 6 16 78 6 26 62 12 10 68 22 28  Q4... 17 77 6 25 64 11 29 55 17 6 75 19 44 2002: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.  Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.  Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.  Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.  Note. Beginning in 2002, the Minneapolis Reserve District will no longer report loan demand. 1. Non-real-estate loans with a term greater than one season. Primarily comprises loans for farm machinery. 2. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (inclu * 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.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21576]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Office of the General Counsel; Appointment of Members of the 
Legal Division to the Performance Review Board, Internal Revenue 
Service

    Under the authority granted to me as Chief Counsel of the Internal 
Revenue Service by the General Counsel of the Department of the 
Treasury by General Counsel Order No. 21 (Rev. 4), pursuant to the 
Civil Service Reform Act, I have appointed the following persons to the 
Legal Division Performance Review Board, Internal Revenue Service 
Panel:

    1. Chairperson, Clarissa Potter, Deputy Chief Counsel (Technical)
    2. Roland Barral, Area Counsel (Large and Mid-Size Business)
    3. Ellen T. Friberg, Area Counsel (Small Business/Self Employed)
    4. Steve Larson, Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions 
and Products)
    5. Edward Cronin (Ted), Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel 
(Criminal Tax)

    This publication is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).

    Dated: August 15, 2008.
Donald L. Korb,
Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service.
[FR Doc. E8-21576 Filed 9-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1



CEO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, Bruce C. Edwards, Chief Executive Officer of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the 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 October 3, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|                              |  |     |  |                             
|----------------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------
|Date:       November 11, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ BRUCE C. EDWARDS        
|                              |  |     |  | Bruce C. Edwards            
|                              |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer     
|                              |  |     |  | Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 22, 2015

NO. 03-13-00546-CV

Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Appellant

v.

City of Dallas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on July 11, 2013. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Appellant shall 

pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-156-01-PB

Rose Cote

O R D E R

Defendant appeared for a bail revocation hearing pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3148. 

Ms. Cote called the individual she believed was the

confidential informant (“CI”) and threatened her. She also

admitted to the crack cocaine sale. All of this is recorded. I

find probable cause to believe a crime has been committed by

defendant while on release. There are no conditions which will

assure the safety of the CI. 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

Case 1:06-cr-00156-PB Document 13 Filed 01/12/07 Page 1 of 2
2

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

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: January 12, 2007 

cc: Helen Fitzgibbon, Esq.

 Tony Soltani, Esq.

 R. Brian Snow, Esq.

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00156-PB Document 13 Filed 01/12/07 Page 2 of 2
U.S. DISTRICT COUR T

DISTRICT OF N .H .

N tT EZ D ST a~ p! STRLC-T Cq !j~-8- hcZ►lA41. I

Co n c o t^ r1 e to I~. w~ P s~ i r~e a3,vv i -

s.1 eVr Of c o-u_c t ', ~

_ .___

- --- C(eck4 .

- -Pl- e ;mv Rate aF CecocJ-t k3,t rv~s . ~1oseP4~-~_a~

Ls

c~a~4 'cs ~x~v~ T=act EUw A Q-1D, R c . 7 E •

L . QRc?W_ts4-f - T .

C1) W-A RJO B.Ro\N2,1 I CS-t {qTL `L~!nr3lb d

B n ~l.a CA ~rt'ian -- `th_~Ce o F ~ J

1=~c coi~rti wi v\S inu_estj~[ 2i-I-(oj~ Fot _ ali ~"oRT$

~e_~~ 2~~e',S ! EST~ITC~ Fo~ CrLwa~~_i-ewu Q C Q w, t Fs#2fe's _

Can be o F 2r 0\. ~

------

S~i 41,ec SeSv~c~ P1ea~~ Con + '6_c -f Y►'1 ~

--- - /

.---

. -~SZUeLte~~~X'~~~'U~• ~~}./2nn/ --L~-c±-~,~----.

-- -

r Fv GD C w - G T4 E

CIA Qb (3oX- t00o- ;

rutaTion ~~Tno ~s__

•

-- - - __~

Case 1:06-cr-00071-SM Document 326 Filed 11/28/11 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cr-00071-SM Document 326 Filed 11/28/11 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

CLINTON EDWARD WILSON,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 54 WAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 31


       Statement Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                                       By
                    Principal Executive and Financial Officer
       Regarding Facts and Circumstances Relating to Exchange Act Filings

I, Cary Brokaw, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Avenue Entertainment
Group, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain
any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in
all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly
report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and we have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):

         a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and over financial controls.


Date:  August 23, 2004



                        Cary Brokaw
                        -----------------------------------
                        President and Chief Executive and Financial Officer
2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-25-2007 

# P a di l l a v . B e ard P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-2900

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " P a d i l l a v . Be a r d " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1740. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1740U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 06- 2900

________________ GE OR GE A. P ADI L L A, A ppel l ant v. J E FFR E Y B E A R D , Secr et aryD epart m ent o f Co r r e c t i o n s ; S u p e r i n t e n d e n tROBER T SH A N N O N , SC I Fr ackvi l l e; U ni tM anage r M S . M IR A N D A , S C I F ra c k v ill e

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 06- cv- 00478 ) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sy l vi a H . R ambo

_____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d F o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l Un d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) O ct ober13, 2006 B efore: S C IR IC A , C hief J ud ge, W E IS and G A R T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

ORDE R AM EN DI NG OP I NI ON Iti s HEREBY O RDERED t hatt he N otPr ece dent i al O pi ni on fi l ed i n t hi s cas e on N ov em ber 16, 2006 , be am end ed as fo l l ow s: O n page 4, l i ne 89 – the w or d “not ” s houl d be i ns er t ed af t ert he w or d “does ” and b e f o re th e w o rd “ im p lica te” , to r e a d “ a p p lica tio n o f th e H -C o d e p o licyd o e s n o t im p lica te a l i ber t yi nt er es tpr ot ect ed 

### b y th e D u e ...” F o r th e C o urt, / s / Mar c i aM. W a l dr on Cler k Dat e d: J anuary

25, 2007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Shawn Cheever

v. Civil No. 06-cv-351-JM

Sergeant Michael Erdmark

and Corporal Kevin Valenti

O R D E R

Defendants have filed three motions related to the trial in

this matter that is scheduled to begin Tuesday, September 15,

2009. Defendants’ motion in limine seeking to exclude expert

testimony on plaintiff’s intentional and negligent infliction of

emotional distress claims is granted (doc. no. 36). Defendants’

motion in limine to exclude from the trial the claims against and

the evidence involving Jane and John Doe defendants is also

granted (doc. no. 37). Defendants’ objection to plaintiff’s

final pretrial statement and request for sanctions to preclude

plaintiff’s use of witnesses is denied (doc. no. 39).

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: September 4, 2009

cc: James W. Kennedy, Esq.

 Michael J. Sheehan, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00351-JM Document 40 Filed 09/04/09 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Chukwuma E. Azubuko

v. Civil No. 06-fp-333

U.S. Court of Appeals-Tenth Circuit

O R D E R

 Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1) plaintiff’s motion for

leave to appeal in forma pauperis is before me. For the reasons

stated the motion is denied. 

The “suit” purports to be against the Tenth Circuit Court of

Appeals. Mr. Azubuko did not pay any filing fee and his district

court in forma pauperis motion was incomplete. He was ordered to

file a completed financial affidavit or pay the filing fee by

November 8, 2006. The case was terminated when neither was

filed. On January 31, 2007 plaintiff moved to reopen the case

and filed a more complete financial statement. 

However, on November 28, 2006, Chief Judge McAuliffe entered

an injunction based upon my recommendation (both attached)

against Mr. Azubuko prohibiting him from filing complaints where,

among other things, this Court had no jurisdiction over the

parties. The instant suit purports to sue the Tenth Circuit, a

Case 1:06-fp-00333 Document 11 Filed 05/02/07 Page 1 of 2
2

party over which this court has no jurisdiction. Mr. Azubuko has

filed over seventy vexatious and abusive claims in nineteen

courts as detailed in my attached Report and Recommendation. The

instant claim is frivolous. In addition, he has not complied

with Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). 

The motion is denied. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 2, 2007

cc: Chukwuma E. Azubuko, pro se

Case 1:06-fp-00333 Document 11 Filed 05/02/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-160-PB

FNU LNU aka “Jose Soler”

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

April 1, 2008 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to negotiate a plea agreement prior to 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, the court will

continue the trial from April 1, 2008 to June 3, 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 defendant in a speedy trial. 

Case 1:05-cr-00160-JD Document 20 Filed 03/14/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The March 27, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued to

May 20, 2008 at 4:15 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

March 14, 2008

cc: Jeffrey S. Levin, Esq.

Alfred J.T. Rubega, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00160-JD Document 20 Filed 03/14/08 Page 2 of 2
#### BOUDREAUX v. ANDERSON et al.

No. 17587.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 2, 1941.

Bernard J. Bagert, of New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

William Boizelle, of New Orleans, for intervenor.

William Donnaud, of New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.

JANVIER, Judge.

The solidary liability of the defendants, Samuel Anderson, Braden Brothers Cab Company, and the Independent Cab Operators Association, Inc., for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, Stanley Boudreaux, has already been determined by us in our opinion in the matter entitled Alfred Gebbs v. Samuel Anderson et al., 2 So.2d 675, handed down this day, wherein a full statement of the facts and law of the case will be found.

The only question remaining for discussion in this case is the quantum of damages.

The court below awarded $75 damages, and in addition permitted intervenor, the City of New Orleans, to recover $48.35, which amount consists of $23 medical expenses and $25.35 for thirteen days’ compensation paid by it to Boudreaux.

Defendants admit that, if they are liable, the City of New Orleans, intervenor, is entitled to recover the full amount of compensation and medical expenses that it has claimed.

Boudreaux was earning $3 per day and, therefore, since he received from the city, as compensation, only 65% of that amount, or $1.95 per day, he sustained an actual loss of earnings of $13.65.

Dr. Holderith, the physician of Bou-dreaux’s employer, the City of New Orleans, testified to treating Boudreaux from July 7 through July 20,’ 1940, and that Boudreaux made seven visits to his office and that he did not work during this period. Boudreaux, according to the physician, was treated for contuse'd lacerated wounds of the lower back, with a possible wrench thereof. According to Boudreaux, his suffering was very severe, he stating that though he reported for work two weeks after the accident, he suffered severely for at least another month.

In view of the cases cited in the Gebbs matter, we will increase the award of the lower court from $75 to $150 in favor of Boudreaux, and also affirm the judgment in favor of intervenor, the City of New Orleans, in the sum of $48.35.

The judgment appealed from, in so far as it runs in favor of Stanley Boudreaux, is amended by increasing the amount thereof to $150 and, as thus amended, it is affirmed.

It is further ordered that the judgment in favor of intervenor, City of New Orleans, be and it is affirmed.

Amended and affirmed.
Case 1:05-cv-00079-SM Document 44 Filed 09/01/06 Page 1 of 1