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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Paul Blackmer

 v. Case No. 06-cv-158-JL

Major Dennis Cox, et al.

O R D E R

By order dated January 7, 2008, this case was reassigned to my civil case docket. 

Because I previously criminally prosecuted the wife of the plaintiff and became familiar with

much of the evidence against the plaintiff during my employment with the New Hampshire

Attorney General’s Office, I recuse myself from this case and request the clerk reassign this

matter.

SO ORDERED.

Date: January 8, 2008 /s/ Joseph N. Laplante

 Joseph N. Laplante

 District Judge

cc: Paul Blackmer, pro se

Deborah B. Weissbard, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00158-JM Document 67 Filed 01/08/08 Page 1 of 1
#### Christopher GRIFFITH, Chief Representative, First Amendment Coalition, Plaintiff, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, and Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of New York State, Defendants.

Docket No. 02-0315.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Aug. 19, 2003.

*892Christopher Griffith, Ray Brook, NY, pro se.

Present: POOLER, SACK, and WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Christopher Griffith, appearing pro se, appeals from the Decision and Order (Scullin, J.), dated October 3, 2002, dismissing his complaint. Griffith, who is currently incarcerated, challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2421*&*2422. These statutes impose criminal penalties upon individuals who operate enterprises engaged in prostitution. Mr. Griffith contends that the statutes violate his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution because they intrude upon his privacy.

The district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint on the ground that a federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider constitutional challenges in the absence of an actual case or controversy. This holding was based upon the fact that Mr. Griffith, while he professes an intention to conduct an enterprise engaged in prostitution, cannot show that he, or anyone associated with his planned enterprise, currently faces an imminent possibility of being prosecuted under §§ 2421 & 2422.

Upon our review of the record on appeal, we affirm the district court’s ruling in full.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN S. EDWARDS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

BEST BUY COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, 

INC.; BESTBUY.COM, LLC, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15642 

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00014-DKD 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David K. Duncan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted October 22, 2018***

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Stephen S. Edwards appeals pro se from the district court’s summary 

judgment in his diversity action alleging state law tort claims stemming from an 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c).

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 31 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-15642 

alleged sexual assault. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review 

de novo. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). We 

affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Edwards 

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were 

vicariously liable for their employee’s conduct. See Pruitt v. Pavelin, 685 P.2d 

1347, 1357 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984) (Arizona observes the general common law rule 

that “an employer is vicariously liable only for the behavior of an employee who 

was acting within the scope of his employment”); see also Arizona v. Schallock, 

941 P.2d 1275, 1282-84 (Ariz. 1997) (en banc) (discussing factors courts evaluate 

to determine whether an employee acted within the course and scope of his 

employment).

We reject as without merit Edwards’s contentions that the district court was 

biased against him.

All pending requests and motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1547 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1547

  To establish a grant program in the Department of Defense to assist 
States and local governments in improving their ability to prevent and 
                     respond to domestic terrorism.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 24, 2001

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committees on the 
  Judiciary, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To establish a grant program in the Department of Defense to assist 
States and local governments in improving their ability to prevent and 
                     respond to domestic terrorism.

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

SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GRANTS TO IMPROVE DOMESTIC 
              PREPAREDNESS TO COMBAT TERRORISM.

    (a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may make grants to 
States and political subdivisions of States for the purpose of 
assisting grant recipients to improve their ability to prevent and 
respond to domestic terrorism through the purchase of suitable anti-
terrorism equipment.
    (b) Maximum Amount of Grant.--The amount of a grant under 
subsection (a) may not exceed 50 percent of the net present value of 
the amount calculated to pay the principal and interest on bonds that 
would have to be issued by the grant recipient to purchase the anti-
terrorism equipment in the absence of the grant.
    (c) Funding Mechanism.--There shall be available for the purposes 
of carrying out this section $1,200,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and 
each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years from the proceeds from the use of 
a competitive bidding system under section 309(j) of the Communications 
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)).
                                 <all>
```
Case 1:07-cv-00060-WES Document 35 Filed 12/20/07 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-00060-WES Document 35 Filed 12/20/07 Page 2 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-00060-WES Document 35 Filed 12/20/07 Page 3 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-00060-WES Document 35 Filed 12/20/07 Page 4 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-00060-WES Document 35 Filed 12/20/07 Page 5 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-00060-WES Document 35 Filed 12/20/07 Page 6 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-00060-WES Document 35 Filed 12/20/07 Page 7 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-00060-WES Document 35 Filed 12/20/07 Page 8 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-00060-WES Document 35 Filed 12/20/07 Page 9 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-00060-WES Document 35 Filed 12/20/07 Page 10 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-00060-WES Document 35 Filed 12/20/07 Page 11 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-00060-WES Document 35 Filed 12/20/07 Page 12 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-00060-WES Document 35 Filed 12/20/07 Page 13 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-00060-WES Document 35 Filed 12/20/07 Page 14 of 14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

USA

v. Civil No. 07-cv-60-PB

ExxonMobil Corporation, et al

O R D E R

I recuse myself from this case and direct the clerk to assign it to another judge.

SO ORDERED.

April 18, 2007 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Jeffrey K. Sands, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00060-WES Document 6 Filed 04/18/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 06-cr-29-01-SM

Rebecka Ayers

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 June 2006 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver of

Speedy Trial Rights not later than March 24, 2005. 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 

Case 1:06-cr-00029-JD Document 8 Filed 03/16/06 Page 1 of 2
2

for effective preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: June 13, 2006 at 10:00 AM

Jury Selection: June 20, 2006 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

March 16, 2006 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Robert Kinsella, Esq.

 Michael Iacopino, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00029-JD Document 8 Filed 03/16/06 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

        Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
                            of the United States Code

     I, E. James Ferland, Chief Executive Officer of Public Service Electric and
Gas Company, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report
of Public Service Electric and Gas Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2004 (the "Periodic Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Public Service
Electric and Gas Company.


                                    /s/ E. James Ferland
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    E. James Ferland
                                    Public Service Electric and Gas Company
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    October 29, 2004
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 251 Filed 08/03/11 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 251 Filed 08/03/11 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 251 Filed 08/03/11 Page 3 of 3
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.

$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

Asset 1998 1999 2000

2001

Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct.p

1 Deposits .............................. 167 71 215 70 101 86 102 84 80 608 75

Held in custody

2 U.S. Treasury securities2 ................. 607,574 632,482 594,094 609,440 585,710 583,655 586,607 578,573 590,820 587,566 599,043

3 Earmarked gold3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,343 9,933 9,451 9,289 9,215 9,154 9,100 9,100 9,100 9,100 9,099

1. Excludes deposits and U.S. Treasury securities held for international and regional

organizations

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

securities, in each case measured at face (not market) value.

3. Held in foreign and international accounts and valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce; not

included in the gold stock of the United States.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

LEONIRES PEREZ-GONZALES, 

Defendants. 

8:23CR112 

ORDER 

 

This matter is before the court on Unopposed Motion to Continue Deadline for Filing 

Pretrial Motions [34]. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. Defendant 

will be given an approximate 60-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by August 21, 2023. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Continue Deadline for Filing Pretrial Motions 

[34] is granted. Pretrial motions shall be filed on or before August 21, 2023. 

2. The ends of justice have been served by granting such motion and outweigh the 

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The additional time arising as a result of 

the granting of the motion, i.e., the time between June 20, 2023 and August 21, 2023, shall be 

deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act 

for the reason defendant's counsel required additional time to adequately prepare the case, taking 

into consideration due diligence of counsel, and the novelty and complexity of this case. The 

failure to grant additional time might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) 

& (B). 

 Dated this 21st day of June, 2023. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Susan M. Bazis 

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00112-RFR-SMB Doc # 36 Filed: 06/21/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 84
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1761

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 8588 Richmond Highway in

Alexandria, Virginia, as the ‘‘Herb Harris PostOffice Building’’.

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1761

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 8588 Richmond Highway in Alexandria, Virginia, as the ‘‘Herb Harris Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1761 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 8588 Richmond Highway in Alexandria, Virginia,

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Herb Harris Post

5 Office Building’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘Herb Harris Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 10,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Nelson Santana

v. Civil No. 05-cv-064-JD

United States of America

PROCEDURAL ORDER

The petitioner has filed a motion requesting a certificate

of appealability (document no. 22). The court declines to issue

a certificate of appealability on the ground that the petitioner

has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. 

SO ORDERED.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

September 22, 2005

cc: Kevin L. Barron, Esquire

Laurence B. Cote, Esquire

Peter E. Papps, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00064-JD Document 25 Filed 09/22/05 Page 1 of 1
V

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1538

For the relief of Thomas McDermott, Sr.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. PETRI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Resources

A BILL

For the relief of Thomas McDermott, Sr.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF PURCHASE.

4 Thomas McDermott, Senior, of Oshkosh, Wisconsin,

5 is authorized to purchase, at fair market value, the real

6 property of the United States in Grant County, New Mex7 ico, to which Mr. McDermott’s mineral patent application

8 applied and the Bureau of Land Management of the De9 partment of the Interior is directed to enter into negotia10 tions with Mr. McDermott for the purchase of such real

11 property. Such application is Mr. McDermott’s application

12 filed under the Act of May 10, 1872 (30 U.S.C. 22 et
2

HR 1538 IH

1 seq.) (referred to as the ‘‘1872 Mining Law’’) identified

2 as mineral patent application NMNM 78359. Such pur3 chase shall be made not later than 6 months after the date

4 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
AO 472 (Rev. 11/16), modified by NED (9/17) 

Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. Case No. 8:23mj279

DAISY FRANCO, ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL

Defendant

Part I - Eligibility for Detention

Upon the

☒ Motion of the Government attorney pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1),

the Court held a detention hearing and found that detention is warranted. 

This order sets forth the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), in 

addition to any other findings made at the hearing.

Part II - Findings of Fact and Law as to Presumptions under § 3142(e)

☒ B. Rebuttable Presumption Arises Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3) (narcotics, firearm, other offenses): There is a

rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the 

defendant as required and the safety of the community because there is probable cause to believe that the defendant 

committed one or more of the following offenses:

☒ (1) an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more is prescribed in the

Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 801-904), the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 

U.S.C. §§ 951-971), or Chapter 705 of Title 46, U.S.C. (46 U.S.C. §§ 70501-70508);

☒ C. Conclusions Regarding Applicability of Any Presumption Established Above

☒ The defendant has not introduced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption above, and detention is

ordered on that basis. (Part III need not be completed.)

Part III - Analysis and Statement of the Reasons for Detention

Part IV - Directions Regarding Detention

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the Attorney General or to the Attorney General’s 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 must be afforded a reasonable 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 must deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance 

in connection with a court proceeding.

Date: 5/12/2023 s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00113-RFR-MDN Doc # 21 Filed: 05/12/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 20
#### BELL & GOSSETT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harry W. SWANSON, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 202.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 7, 1938.

Maurice M. Moore, of Minneapolis, Minn., John R. Nicholson,,of Chicago, 111., and T. Clay Lindsey, of Hartford, Conn., for appellant.

A. Yates Dowell; of Washington, D. C, and Curtiss K. Thompson, of New Haven, Conn., for appellee.

Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Decree affirmed.
I

★

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1357

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the

subpart F exemption for active financing income.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 3, 2001

Mr. MCCRERY (for himself, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. BRADY of Texas,

Mr. CAMP, Mr. CRANE, Ms. DUNN, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. FOLEY, Mr.

HAYWORTH, Mr. HERGER, Mr. HOUGHTON, Mr. HULSHOF, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. KLECZKA, Mr.

LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr.

POMEROY, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. SHAW, Mr. TANNER, Mr. WATKINS, Mr. WELLER, and Mrs. THURMAN) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently

extend the subpart F exemption for active financing income.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT SUBPART F EXEMPTION FOR AC4 TIVE FINANCING INCOME.

5 (a) BANKING, FINANCING, OR SIMILAR BUSI6 NESSES.—Subsection (h) of section 954 of the Internal

7 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for income
2

HR 1357 IH1S

1 derived in the active conduct of banking, financing, or

2 similar businesses) is amended by striking paragraph (9).

3 (b) INSURANCE BUSINESSES.—Subsection (e) of sec4 tion 953 of such Code (relating to exempt insurance in5 come) is amended by striking paragraph (10) and by re6 designating paragraph (11) as paragraph (10).

7 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

8 this section shall apply to taxable years of a foreign cor9 poration beginning after December 31, 2001, and to tax10 able years of United States shareholders with or within

11 which such taxable years of such foreign corporation end.

Æ
Exhibit
4.8


 


FORM
51-102F3

MATERIAL CHANGE REPORT


 


		Item
                           1	Name
                                         and Address of Company



 


BELLUS
Health Inc. (the “Company” or “BELLUS
Health”)


275
Armand-Frappier Blvd.


Laval,
Québec


H7V
4A7


 


		Item
                           2	Date
                                         of Material Change



 


August
26, 2019


 


		Item
                           3	News
                                         Release



 


A
press release was issued on August 26, 2019, from Laval, Québec, and disseminated by Globe Newswire.


 


		Item
                           4	Summary
                                         of Material Change



 


The
Company announced the appointment of Dr. Catherine Bonuccelli, MD as Chief Medical Officer.


 


		Item
                           5	Full
                                         Description of Material Change



 


5.1           Full
Description of Material Change


 


On
August 26, 2019, the Company announced the appointment of Dr. Catherine Bonuccelli, MD to the role of Chief Medical Officer.


 


5.2           Disclosure
for Restructuring Transactions


 


N/A


 


		Item
                           6	Reliance
                                         on subsection 7.1(2) of National Instrument 51-102



 


This
report is not being filed on a confidential basis.


 


		Item
                           7	Omitted
                                         Information



 


N/A


 




     


     


    

 


		Item
                           8	Executive
                                         Officer



 


François
Desjardins


Vice-President,
Finance


(450)
680-4525


 


		Item
                           9	Date
                                         of Report



 


August
27, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Harvey Pratt

v. 05-cv-367-SM

New Hampshire

Department of Corrections, et al. 

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated May 3, 2007, for the

reasons set forth therein. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction on Placement

and Retention at NCF (Northern New Hampshire Correctional Facility) (doc. no. 98)

is denied.

SO ORDERED.

June 14, 2007 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Harvey Pratt, pro se

Andrew Livernois, Esq.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0060

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ROBERT AYRES DASILVA JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including December 14, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 2 2022

11/02/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0060