alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1 .00-cv'-€?039:1- JLI Document 29-2 Filec! 09.r19!2 007 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

HOP KEE PYROTECHNICS, Ltd.,

Plaintiff,

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICTOF NEWFOMpsFppE

CC-11 -12007

FILED

v. 1 CV-1:06-cv-0393-JD

PYRAMID FIREWORKS, INC.

And GARRY DEBLASIS, Individually,

Defendants.

ORDER ATTACHING PERSONAL PROPERTY

Comes now Plaintiff, Hop Kee Pyrotechnics, Ltd ., by counsel and files its Motion for

Attachment of Personal Property and the Court being duly advised in the premise finds that

the Defendant, Pyramid Fireworks, Inc ., does have assets which can be used to satisfy the

judgment entered herein .

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED tha t

1. The Defendant, Pyramid Fireworks, Inc. shall turn over to the sheriff of Rockingham

County, New Jersey all assorted fireworks, products and supplies at its office located at 780

Lafayette Road, Seabrook, New Hampshire for sale at a public auction .

2 . The proceeds of said sale shall be applied by the sheriff to the judgment in favor of

Hop Kee Pyrotechnics, Ltd.

DATED this laday of ~- KN, 2007.

Magistrate Ju e, United States District Court

Di trict o New Hampshire

Case 1:06-cv-00393-JD Document 32 Filed 10/01/07 Page 1 of 2
D Document 29-2 Filed 09i11i2007 Page 2 of 2

Distribution to:

Dennis Pizzimenti

Attorney at Law

6 Chapel Street

Concord, New Hampshire 0330 1

John H. Brooke

BROOKE MAWHORR, P . C.

P.O . Box 107 1

112 E. Gilbert St.

Muncie, IN 47305

Pyramid Fireworks, Inc.

124 Route 12 5

Kingston, New Hampshire 03848

Garry DeBlasis

124 Route 125

Kingston, New Hampshire 03848

Case 1:06-cv-00393-JD Document 32 Filed 10/01/07 Page 2 of 2
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1511-CR-1944 | May 25, 2016 Page 1 of 3

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE

Terry Criss

Pendleton, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Brian Reitz

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Terry Criss,

Appellant-Petitioner,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Respondent

May 25, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A04-1511-CR-1944

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Grant W. 

Hawkins, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

CR-86025E

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1511-CR-1944 | May 25, 2016 Page 2 of 3

[1] Terry Criss appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct erroneous 

sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.

[2] On July 7, 1986, Criss pleaded guilty to murder, class A felony burglary, two 

counts of class B felony criminal confinement, class B felony burglary, and class 

D felony theft. On October 15, 1986, the trial court sentenced Criss to an 

aggregate term of 124 years imprisonment. Criss filed a petition for postconviction relief in July 1990, which the post-conviction court denied in 

February 1991. On October 8, 2015, Criss filed a motion to correct erroneous 

sentence. The trial court denied the motion the day after it was filed. Criss 

now appeals.

[3] We review a ruling on a motion to correct erroneous sentence for an abuse of 

discretion. Davis v. State, 978 N.E.2d 470, 472 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). A motion 

to correct erroneous sentence may only be used to correct sentencing errors that 

are apparent from the face of the sentencing order. Robinson v. State, 805 

N.E.2d 783, 787 (Ind. 2004). As a result, claims that require consideration of 

the proceedings before, during, or after trial do not warrant relief. Id.

[4] Here, Criss raises four arguments in his motion to correct erroneous sentence: 

(1) alleged prosecutorial misconduct during trial renders the sentence unfair; (2) 

he did not knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty; (3) there was an insufficient 

factual basis supporting his guilty plea; and (4) his sentences violate the 

prohibition against double jeopardy. Each of these arguments requires 

consideration of the proceedings before, during, or after trial. There are no 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1511-CR-1944 | May 25, 2016 Page 3 of 3

sentencing errors apparent on the face of the sentencing order. As a result, the 

trial court did not err by denying Criss’s motion to correct erroneous sentence.

[5] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

May, J., and Brown, J., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-97-01/02-SM

Edward Cervantes Arias

and Jose Luis Alsina-Ortiz

O R D E R

Defendant Alsina-Ortiz’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference

and trial is granted (document 26). Trial has been rescheduled for the March 

2007 trial period. Defendant Alsina-Ortiz shall file a waiver of speedy trial

rights not later than December 27, 2006. 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 defendants in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: February 22, 2007 at 11:30 a.m.

Jury Selection: March 6, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00097-SM Document 27 Filed 12/18/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

December 18, 2006

cc: Richard N. Foley, Esq.

Jose A. Espinosa, Esq.

Michael Sheehan, Esq.

Mark Zuckerman, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00097-SM Document 27 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CLIFTON D. REINOEHL,

Defendant.

4:23CR3066

ORDER

Defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (Filing No. 

19), because Defendant and defense counsel need additional time to fully review 

the discovery. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set 

forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1) Defendant’s motion to continue, (Filing No. 19), is granted.

2) Pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before August 16, 

2023.

3) The conference call previously scheduled to be held on June 23, 

2023, is continued. A telephonic conference with counsel will be held 

before the undersigned magistrate judge at 9:45 a.m. on August 23, 

2023 to discuss setting any pretrial motion hearing needed, a 

change of plea hearing, or the date of the jury trial and deadlines for 

disclosing experts as required under Rule 16. Counsel for all parties 

shall use the conferencing instructions provided by the court to 

participate in the call.

4) The ends of justice served by granting the motion to continue 

outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy 

trial, and the additional time arising as a result of the granting of the 

motion, the time between today’s date and August 23, 2023 shall be 

deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the 

4:23-cr-03066-JMG-CRZ Doc # 20 Filed: 06/20/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 30
requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because although counsel 

have been duly diligent, additional time is needed to adequately 

prepare this case for trial and failing to grant additional time might 

result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1) & (h)(7). 

Failing to timely object to this order as provided under this court’s 

local rules will be deemed a waiver of any right to later claim the time 

should not have been excluded under the Speedy Trial Act.

Dated this 20th day of June, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cr-03066-JMG-CRZ Doc # 20 Filed: 06/20/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 31
<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:  May 18, 2005

                                                 /s/ Cary Brokaw
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Cary Brokaw
                                                 President and Chief Executive
                                                 and Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Huntington Barclay, et al 

v. Civil No. 06-cv-368-SM

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al

ORDER ON NONCONFORMING DOCUMENT

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 5.2

DOCUMENT/FILER: #Document #31, Combined Opposition and Cross Motion for Summary

Judgment, filed by Motorsports Holdings, LLC

DATE: May 18, 2007

The document above fails to comply with: 

LR 7.1(a)(1) Motions, other than those submitted during trial, shall be considered only

if submitted separately from other filings and only if the word ‘’motion’‘

appears in the title. The pleading will be accepted as an Objection to

Motion for Summary Judgment. A Cross Motion for Summary Judgment

must be filed separately.

The document will remain on file. Unless a document curing the defect is filed by May 29, 2007,

the original document will be treated as withdrawn and will not be ruled upon by a judicial officer. The

document curing the defect shall be filed in ECF.

No action on the nonconforming motion will be taken until the defect is cured.

Any time periods with regard to this document will run from the date the defect is cured by the

submission of a conforming pleading without further order of the court.

SO ORDERED.

May 21, 2007 ______________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Andrew W. Serell, Esq.

Laurel A. Bedig, Esq. 

Matthew R. Johnson, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00368-SM Document 33 Filed 05/21/07 Page 1 of 1
#### HINDIN/OWEN/ENGELKE, INC., a corporation, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. FOUR SEASONS HEALTHCARE, INC., a corporation, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 02-56023.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 4, 2003.

Decided July 14, 2003.

*618Before: THOMPSON, TROTT, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Hindin/Owen/Engelke Inc. (“HOE”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Four Seasons Healthcare, Inc., as well as the district court’s order awarding Four Seasons attorney’s fees. We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. *Alfrey v. United States,*276 F.3d 557, 561 (9th Cir.2002).

Four Seasons asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment because the January 11, 2001, Agreement between the parties entitles HOE to a placement fee only if Four Seasons receives “initial funding proceeds.” We reject this contention.

Under California law, we are bound to give force to all of a contract’s provisions. Cal. Civil Code § 1641. Paragraph 3, sub-part C, of the January 11 Agreement entitles HOE to a fee if Four Seasons hinders or frustrates a lending institution’s efforts (a) to propose financing to Four Seasons, (b) to conduct due diligence, and/or (c) to fund Four Seasons. In such a situation Four Seasons would not receive any “initial funding proceeds” or “initial funds,” yet HOE would still be entitled to a fee. Therefore, reading the Agreement as Four Seasons suggests-to make the receipt of funds a precondition to payment-would render meaningless subpart C, and also perhaps subparts A, B, and D. Moreover, our holding does not render the portions of the Agreement discussing “initial funding proceeds” or “initial funds” surplusage; those provisions concern non-exclusive sources for payment, not whether HOE will receive payment. The provisions, for example, do not employ a term such as “only,” which would indicate an exclusive source.

We therefore hold that summary judgment was improperly granted because there are genuine issues of material fact, including but not limited to whether, FI-NOVA Capital Corporation’s agreement with Four Seasons constitutes a “credit facility or facilities,” “funding proposal,” “lending program,” “funding commitment,” or “fund” for purposes of the January 11 Agreement.

Accordingly, the district court’s order on summary judgment is reversed, and its order awarding attorney’s fees to Four Seasons is vacated. Costs on appeal are awarded to the appellant.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

*

 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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-34-01-SM

Carlos Chaparro-Jamarillo

O R D E R

Defendant Chaparro-Jamarillo’s motion to continue the final pretrial

conference and trial is granted (document 9 ). Trial has been rescheduled for

the January 2005 trial period. Defendant Chaparro-Jamarillo has filed a waiver

of speedy trial.

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 defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

|

Final Pretrial Conference: December 20, 2005 at 1:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: January 6, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:05-cr-00034-SM Document 11 Filed 11/28/05 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

November 28, 2005

cc: Thomas McCue, Esq.

Helen Fitzgibbon, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00034-SM Document 11 Filed 11/28/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>    5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             14,127
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      27,799
<ALLOWANCES>                                        3,645
<INVENTORY>                                         8,986
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   53,720
<PP&E>                                            425,388
<DEPRECIATION>                                    212,083
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    290,746
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              35,481
<BONDS>                                           155,574
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                               81
<OTHER-SE>                                       (213,486)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      290,746
<SALES>                                            17,138
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   89,109
<CGS>                                              10,735
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      50,339
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      450
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 11,278
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (55,886) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (1,801)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (54,085)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (54,085)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (3.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (3.11) 
        


</TABLE>
#### Rudine L. JONES, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-7003.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 7, 2003.

ON MOTION

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of Rudine L. Jones’ unopposed motion to dismiss 01-7003,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The unopposed motion to dismiss is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 183 (Friday, September 19, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21869]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Revised Notice for Commission Open Meeting on September 18, 2008

September 12, 2008.
    On September 11, 2008, the Commission issued a Notice pursuant to 
the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b, announcing the 
agenda for the Commission's open meeting to be held on September 18, 
2008.
    Take notice that the docket numbers for the item listed as ``E-25'' 
are revised to read as follows:

E-25; RM06-16-004 and RR08-1-001.

    A corrected version of the Sunshine Notice for the September 18, 
2008 open meeting will be posted in the Commission's eLibrary system 
and the Commission's Web site.
    This Notice is issued pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine 
Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b. Chairman Kelliher, Commissioners Kelly, Spitzer, 
Moeller and Wellinghoff, voted to issue this notice on September 12, 
2008.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21869 Filed 9-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      22,909,481
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  193,404
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,402,734
<PP&E>                                      29,555,954
<DEPRECIATION>                                 243,647
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              57,373,415
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,833,535
<BONDS>                                     22,507,789
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        90,250
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,941,841
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                57,373,415
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               538,588
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,136,529
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             150,656
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (373,881)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (373,881)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (373,881)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
#### Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd., *v.*Haber Moving *&*Storage, Inc.

(No. 24444

Decided December 13, 1933.)

*Messrs. Quigley S Byrnes,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Mettel é Frost,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.