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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

V .

Leslie B . Smith Allen R. Hal

land Terri Hodgkins

Case No . 06-cr-97-3-4-6-S M

ORDER

Defendant Terri Hodgkins has filed a motion to continue the final pretria l

conference and trial (document no . 92). Trial has been rescheduled for the

April 2008 trial period . Defendants Hodgkin and Smith shall file a waivers of

speedy trial rights not later than February 4, 2008 . On the filing of such

waiver, her continuance shall be effective . No further continuances absent

extraordinary justification .

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 : March 18, 2008 at 4 :00 p .m.

Jury Selection : April 1, 2008 at 9 :30 a .m.

Case 1:06-cr-00097-SM Document 93 Filed 01/25/08 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED .

January 25, 2008

cc : Paul Garrity, Esq.

Stanley Norkunas, Esq.

Paul Pappas, Esq.

Jose A . Espinosa, Esq.

Michael Sheehan, Esq.

Clyde R.W.Garrigan, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

even J. IcAuliffe

2

Case 1:06-cr-00097-SM Document 93 Filed 01/25/08 Page 2 of 2
accounts is not included in the gold stock of the United States; see table 3.13, line 3. Gold 

stock is valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce. 

2. Special drawing rights (SDRs) are valued according to a technique adopted by the 

International Monetary Fund (IMF) in July 1974. Values are based on a weighted average of 

exchange rates for the currencies of member countries. From July 1974 through December 

1980, sixteen currencies were used; since January 1981, five currencies have been used. U.S. 

1974. 

3. Includes allocations of SDRs by the International Monetary Fund on Jan. 1 of the year 

indicated, as follows: 1970—$867 million; 1971—$717 million; 1972—$710 million; 1979— 

$1,139 million; 1980—$1,152 million; 1981—$1,093 million; plus net transactions in SDRs. 

4. Valued at current market exchange rates. 

3.13	 FOREIGN OFFICIAL ASSETS HELD AT FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS1 

Millions of dollars, end of period 

2000 2001 

Asset 1997 1998 1999 

Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Mayp 

1 Deposits .............................. 457 167 71 115 104 215 199 196 70 101 86

Held in custody 

2 U.S. Treasury securities2 ................. 

3 Earmarked gold3 ........................ 

620,885 

10,763 

607,574 

10,343 

632,482 

9,933 

595,591 

9,565 

591,071 

9,505 

594,094 

9,451 

594,694 

9,397 

603,906 

9,343 

609,440 

9,289 

585,710 

9,235 

583,655 

9,154 

1. Excludes deposits and U.S. Treasury securities held for international and regional 3. Held in foreign and international accounts and valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce; not 

organizations. included in the gold stock of the United States. 

2. Marketable U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds and nonmarketable U.S. Treasury 

securities, in each case measured at face (not market) value.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie Joe ANNETT, aka Inch, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-50571.

D.C. No. CR-99-00084-AHM-14.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 17, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Eddie Joe Annett appeals his 144-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction to two counts of conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and two counts of possession of a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Annett’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no arguable issues for review, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Annett has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Our examination of the briefs and independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no issues warranting review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.1

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. We decline to review Annett’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims on direct appeal. *See United States v. Hanoum,*33 F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (9th Cir.1994). Annett’s request for a new attorney is denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-51-01-SM

Toan K. Nguyen

O R D E R

Defendant Nguyen’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 7). Trial has been rescheduled for the July 2007

trial period. Defendant Nguyen shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than May 2, 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 defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: June 25, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: July 10, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00051-SM Document 8 Filed 04/23/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

 ____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

April 23, 2007

cc: Richard Monteith, Esq.

Jennifer Davis, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00051-SM Document 8 Filed 04/23/07 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1583 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1583

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
   at 121 West Spring Street in New Albany, Indiana, as the ``Lee H. 
       Hamilton Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2001

   Mr. Hill (for himself, Mr. Visclosky, Mr. Pence, Mr. Roemer, Mr. 
 Souder, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Kerns, Mr. Hostettler, 
  and Ms. Carson of Indiana) introduced the following bill; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
   at 121 West Spring Street in New Albany, Indiana, as the ``Lee H. 
       Hamilton Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse located at 121 
West Spring Street in New Albany, Indiana, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Lee H. Hamilton Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``Lee H. Hamilton Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
In the Senate of the United States,

November 20, 2002.

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 1606) entitled ‘‘An Act to amend section 507 of

the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of

1996 to authorize additional appropriations for historically

black colleges and universities, to decrease the matching requirement related to such appropriations, and for other purposes.’’, do pass with the following

AMENDMENT:

1 Page 3, line 14, strike out øsuch sums as may be

2 necessary¿ and insert: a total of $10,000,000 for fiscal

3 years 2003 and 2004

Attest:

Secretary.
107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1606

AMENDMENT
Case 1:07-cr-00189-GZS Document 673-1 Filed 04/08/11 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cr-00189-GZS Document 673-1 Filed 04/08/11 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cr-00189-GZS Document 673-1 Filed 04/08/11 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32(a)

ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORP.

Certificate Pursuant
to Section 906

of Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002

CERTIFICATION OF CEO

The undersigned, John F. Young,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Energy Future Holdings Corp. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 (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 29th day of October, 2009.



/s/ JOHN F. YOUNGName:

John F. YoungTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Energy Future Holdings Corp. and will be retained by Energy Future Holdings Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
ROBERTO L. NORTON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-4426

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 14, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

James O. Shelfer, Judge.

Roberto L. Norton, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO, CLARK, and MARSTILLER, JJ., CONCUR.
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 18 , 2021

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00 308

- CV

LINDA J. TREZVANT , Appellant

V.

STEVE ZAMPRELLI AND KIMBERLY ZAMPRELLI , Appellee s

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1165967

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from a judgment signed May 26 , 202 1

. 1 The notice of appeal

1 T he underlying lawsuit was an eviction proceeding originally filed in the justice court and appealed for trial de novo in the county civil court at law. Appellees Steve Zamprelli and Kimberly Zamprelli requested a writ of possession and for an award of $2,433 .00 in attorney’s fees. The county civil court at law rendered summary judgment directing the county clerk to issue a writ of possession and awarded appellees $1,250.00 in attorney’s fees. The “final summary judgment” contained a Mother Hubbard clause that “all other relief not expressly granted herein is hereby DENIED.” While the Mother Hubbard clause is insufficient to make a judgment final in a case that is not resolved by a conventional trial on the merits, the May 26, 2021 judgment nonetheless actually disposed of all remaining parties and claims, so it is a final judgment for2

was filed May 25, 2021, and thus is deemed to have been filed on the same day as the judgment. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 27.1(a).
Although the notice of appeal was purported to be filed by pro se appellant
Linda J. Trezvant both on her own behalf and on behalf of Michael Trezvant, who did not personally sign the notice of appeal, a pro se party cannot file a notice of appeal on behalf of another person. Paselk v. Rabun , 293 S.W.3d 600, 606 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2009, no pet.). The court notified the parties tha t the appeal would be dismissed as to Mr. Trezvant unless a response was filed on or before October 11, 2021, showing meritorious ground s for continuing the appeal as to him. No response was filed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisd iction as
to Michael Trezvant.
As for Linda J. Trezvant, her brief was required to be filed on August 5, 2021. On October 5, 2021, Ms. Trezvant was warned that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless she filed a brief with this court before October 19,
2021. No brief was filed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as to Linda J. Trezvant for want of prosecution , thus fully resolving the appeal

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case because appellant fail ed to comply with notice from clerk requiring response or other action within specified time).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Spain.

purposes of appeals. Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 200, 203

– 04 (Tex. 2001).
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

INTERNATIONAL COLD STORAGE, INC., MICHAEL MATRAS, and

JOEL BARTHEL,

Appellants,

v.

ALL-AMERICAN FARMS, INC. a/k/a ALL AMERICAN FARMS, INC.,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1054

[February 1, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Joseph Marx, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50 2011 CA 003488 

XXXX MB.

Jennifer B. Carroll and George L. Sigalos of Simon & Sigalos, LLP, Boca 

Raton, for appellants.

Paul O. Lopez and Rachel R. Bausch of Tripp Scott, P.A., Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Azalia GIL-GARCIA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-50048.

D.C. No. CR-01-01855-IEG.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 8, 2002.

Decided Jan. 10, 2003.

Before HALL, THOMPSON and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Azalia Gil-Garcia appeals her convictions for possessing with intent to distribute and importing marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 841. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

At trial, Gil-Garcia denied knowing that there was marijuana in the car she drove from Mexico into the United States. She was paid $500 to drive that car. The prior conduct, admitted into evidence at her trial, occurred two weeks earlier and involved *249her being paid $500 to ride as a passenger in a car that entered the United States from Mexico. That car also contained marijuana.

Gil-Gareia’s prior conduct tended to prove that she knew at the time of the present incident that there was marijuana in the car she was driving; her prior conduct took place just two weeks earlier; that conduct was confirmed by her own statements and a notebook found at the scene; and the conduct similarly involved being paid $500 in connection with the importation of marijuana by car from Mexico into the United States. The evidence of the prior conduct was properly admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). *See United States v. Castillo,*181 F.3d 1129, 1134-35 (9th Cir.1999); *United States v. Arambula-Ruiz,*987 F.2d 599, 604 (9th Cir.1993); *United States v. Johnson,*132 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir.1997).

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the probative value of the prior conduct was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. *See Arambula-Ruiz,*987 F.2d at 604.

Gil-Garcia’s reliance on *United States v. Garcia-Orozco,*997 F.2d 1302, 1303-04 (9th Cir.1993), is misplaced. There, we determined that an incident involving drugs three years earlier did not put the defendant “on ‘notice’ that every ear in which he rode thereafter could contain drugs.” *Id.*at 1304. Here, the prior conduct *of*having been paid $500 to ride across the border as a passenger in a car containing marijuana clearly raises a legitimate inference that the defendant was on notice that there was marijuana in the car she was paid $500 to drive into the United States from Mexico two weeks later.

Gil-Gareia’s remaining arguments that (1) the statutes she was convicted of violating are unconstitutional under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); (2) she had to know the drug type and quantity; and (3) she had to “enter” the United States as that term is understood in the immigration context are foreclosed by recent decisions of this court. *See United States v. Marcucci*299 F.3d 1156, 1165 (9th Cir.2002); *United States v. Carranza,*289 F.3d 634, 642-44 (9th Cir.2002).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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. 07-cr-77-PB

Kevin Corbin

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

May 6, 2008 trial in the above case to allow time to procure

additional records from the IRS concerning the defendant and to

engage in plea negotiations. The government does not object to a

continuance of the trial date. 

The January 2, 2008 order continuing the trial stated that

no further continuances would be allowed in this case. However,

for the reasons set forth in defendant’s current motion to

continue and to allow counsel time to properly prepare for trial,

the court will agree to continue the trial from May 6, 2008 to

October 7, 2008. 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

Case 1:07-cr-00077-PB Document 24 Filed 04/22/08 Page 1 of 2
2

defendant in a speedy trial.

The April 23, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued to

September 29, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. Counsel shall note that no

further continuances will be granted in this case. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

April 21, 2008

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Robert Kinsella, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00077-PB Document 24 Filed 04/22/08 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 111 Filed 10/19/10 Page 1 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 111 Filed 10/19/10 Page 2 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 111 Filed 10/19/10 Page 3 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 111 Filed 10/19/10 Page 4 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 111 Filed 10/19/10 Page 5 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 111 Filed 10/19/10 Page 6 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 111 Filed 10/19/10 Page 7 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 111 Filed 10/19/10 Page 8 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 111 Filed 10/19/10 Page 9 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 111 Filed 10/19/10 Page 10 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 111 Filed 10/19/10 Page 11 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 111 Filed 10/19/10 Page 12 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 111 Filed 10/19/10 Page 13 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 111 Filed 10/19/10 Page 14 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 111 Filed 10/19/10 Page 15 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 111 Filed 10/19/10 Page 16 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 111 Filed 10/19/10 Page 17 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 111 Filed 10/19/10 Page 18 of 18
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1686 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1686

 To amend title 49, United States Code, to limit the Federal Aviation 
 Administration's authority to establish examination requirements for 
      pilots, other than pilots involved in commercial operations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 2, 2001

  Mr. Peterson of Minnesota introduced the following bill; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 49, United States Code, to limit the Federal Aviation 
 Administration's authority to establish examination requirements for 
      pilots, other than pilots involved in commercial operations.

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

SECTION 1. AIRMAN CERTIFICATES.

    (a) General.--Section 44703(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended to read as follows:
    ``(a) General.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
Administration shall issue an airman certificate to an individual when 
the Administrator finds, after investigation--
            ``(1) that the individual is qualified for the position to 
        be authorized by the certificate; and
            ``(2) in any case in which the certificate is for 
        commercial operations, that the individual is physically able 
        to perform the duties related to the position.''.
    (b) Contents.--Section 44703(b)(1)(C) is amended to read as 
follows:
            ``(C) contain terms that the Administrator decides are 
        necessary to ensure safety in air commerce, including terms on 
        the duration of the certificate and excluding, except in any 
        case in which the certificate is for commercial operations, 
        terms on periodic or special examinations and tests of physical 
        fitness;''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Comcast of Maine/New Hampshire, Inc.

v. Civil No. 06-cv-142-JM

Joseph F. Slater, Jr.

O R D E R

 Pursuant to an order of September 18, 2006, plaintiff’s

counsel and Comcast were ordered to provide all written evidence

supporting the complaint and to show cause why they should not be

sanctioned for the complaint if it was knowingly filed after the

statute of limitations had expired. 

Comcast and counsel filed a very detailed and complete set

of documents which fully justified the complaint and demonstrated

conclusively that the dates on which the offending equipment were

surrendered were April 14 and 15, 2003, not February 4, 2003 as

defendant stated at the settlement conference. Comcast and

Attorneys McLaughlin and Shapiro have demonstrated that the

complaint was based soundly upon fact and in full compliance with

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. In fact, it would be hard to find a case

brought with a better evidentiary foundation. Counsel have

demonstrated a basis for the high regard in which they are held

Case 1:06-cv-00142-JM Document 18 Filed 10/13/06 Page 1 of 2
2

by this judge. Comcast and counsel have shown cause why they

should not be sanctioned under Rule 11. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 13, 2006

cc: John M. McLaughlin, Esq.

 R. Peter Shapiro, Esq.

 Joseph F. Slater, Jr., pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00142-JM Document 18 Filed 10/13/06 Page 2 of 2