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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-121-PB

Christopher Aldrich

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

September 5, 2007 trial in the above case citing the need for

additional time to schedule a hearing on the recently completed 

psychiatric evaluation of the defendant and to engage in plea

negotiations if appropriate. The government does not object to a

continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from September 5, 1007 to October 10, 2007. 

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 1:06-cr-00121-PB Document 39 Filed 08/30/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The clerk shall set a hearing to address the psychiatric

report on September 26, 2007 at 11:00 a.m., followed by the final

pretrial conference. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

August 30, 2007

cc: Sven Wiberg, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00121-PB Document 39 Filed 08/30/07 Page 2 of 2
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

VETERANS ELECTRIC, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2017-1655

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:16-cv-01113-LAS, Senior Judge Loren A. 

Smith.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

BRANDON MICHAEL SELINSKY, Rocky Mountain Disability Law Group, Denver, CO, argued for plaintiffappellant.

 ALBERT S. IAROSSI, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also 

represented by CHAD A. READLER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN,

JR., DEBORAH A. BYNUM. 

______________________ 
 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and 

LOURIE, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 January 16, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc.

v. Civil No. 06-cv-100-JD

HemCon, Inc.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. brings patent infringement

claims against HemCon, Inc., alleging infringement of United

States Patent No. 6,864,245 ("'245 patent"). HemCon moved for

claim construction of the '245 patent, and Marine Polymer filed

an objection. The court understood the motion to request a

Markman hearing and denied the motion as premature. HemCon now

moves for summary judgment, based upon its asserted construction

of the '245 patent, and Marine Polymer moves for partial summary

judgment, based on its own claim construction.

Before Marine Polymer's infringement claim can be addressed

for purposes of the summary judgment motions, the disputed terms

of the '245 patent must be construed by the court. It appears

that the parties now agree that the disputed terms that are

material to this case are "biocompatible poly-ß-164-Nacetylglucosamine" and "biocompatible poly-ß-164-N-glucosamine"

as used in the '245 patent. Therefore, each party shall file a

brief on claim construction on or before August 17, 2007. Each

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 41 Filed 07/26/07 Page 1 of 3
2

party will then have twenty days to file a response. Leave to

file further briefing, such as a reply, must be requested by

motion. If either party believes that a hearing on claim

construction, a Markman hearing, would be useful and appropriate,

that party shall file a motion, after consulting with opposing

counsel, explaining the basis for its motion.

Once the court issues a final order on claim construction,

counsel shall confer about the remaining issues and the

possibilities of settlement. If a settlement is not reached,

within thirty days following final resolution of claim

construction (that is, after the court issues the order on claim

construction and resolves any timely motion for reconsideration

that may be filed), the parties shall file motions for summary

judgment, if appropriate, on the infringement claim. The rules

for responses to those motions will apply thereafter.

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 41 Filed 07/26/07 Page 2 of 3
3

The trial in this case which is now scheduled for the trial

period beginning on October 15, 2007, will be rescheduled

following the court's order on claim construction.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

July 26, 2007

cc: Stephanie Anne Bray, Esquire

Daniel R. Johnson, Esquire

Joseph A. Kromholz, Esquire

Richard B. McNamara, Esquire

Lynda Q. Nguyen, Esquire

Brian M. Poissant, Esquire

Daniel D. Ryan, Esquire

Ognian V. Shentov, Esquire

Jonathan M. Shirley, Esquire

Daniel W. Will, Esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 41 Filed 07/26/07 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States

v. Case No. 06-cr-71-01 -SM

Elaine Brown

ORDER

Re: Document No. 211, Bill of Review for Injunction with

this Court/Judge for the Stay of The Seizure of Property Pending

Proof of Jurisdiction on the Record

Ruling: The government points out that this motion was

misfiled by the defendant, Elaine Brown, in her criminal case,

which is closed. Given the apparent subject matter, the government

suggests that the motion was intended to be filed (or at least is

only properly filed) in In the Matter of the Tax Indebtedness of

Elaine A. Brown , 07-MC-46-JM. As I agree with the government’s

assessment of the situation, and Dr. Brown is acting pro se, the

clerk will refile the motion in 07-MC-46-JM, and forward a copy

(ECF) to the AUSA representing the government in that case for an

appropriate response. So Ordered. 

 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief District Judge

Date: December 4, 2007

cc: Elaine Brown, pro se

Robert Rabuck, AUSA 

George W. Vien, AUSA

06-cr-71-01/02-SM

Case 1:06-cr-00071-SM Document 215 Filed 12/04/07 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1553 Introduced in House (IH)]

                                    

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1553

        To repeal export controls on high performance computers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 24, 2001

    Mr. Dreier (for himself, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Flake, and Mr. Honda) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
  International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Armed 
Services, 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 repeal export controls on high performance computers.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CERTAIN EXPORT CONTROLS.

    Subtitle B of title XII of division A of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (50 U.S.C. App. 2404 note), and 
the items relating to that subtitle in the table of contents for that 
Act, are repealed.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk February 8, 2013

s0205 

# Order

February 8, 2013

146461 & (3)(4)(5)

In re:

SC: 146461

The Honorable WADE H. McCREE,

3rd Circuit Court

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration are GRANTED.

The petition for interim suspension is considered, and it is GRANTED. The respondent

Wayne Circuit Judge Wade H. McCree is suspended without pay, effective immediately,

until further order of this Court. The respondent’s salary will be held in escrow pending

the final resolution of these disciplinary proceedings. The motion to seal the Supreme

Court file is also co nsidered, and it is GRANTED, in order to preserve the confidentiality

required by MCR 9.219(A)(2) and MCR 9.221(A). With the exception of this order, the

Supreme Court file is suppressed and shall remain confidential until further order of this

Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1499 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1499

To amend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 to permit 
  individuals who graduated from a secondary school prior to 1998 and 
individuals who enroll in an institution of higher education more than 
3 years after graduating from a secondary school to participate in the 
  tuition assistance programs under such Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2001

 Mr. Norton (for herself, Mrs. Morella, and Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 to permit 
  individuals who graduated from a secondary school prior to 1998 and 
individuals who enroll in an institution of higher education more than 
3 years after graduating from a secondary school to participate in the 
  tuition assistance programs under such Act, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia College Access 
Act Technical Corrections Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. REVISIONS TO ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR TUITION ASSISTANCE 
              UNDER DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE ACCESS ACT.

    (a) Permitting Certain Individuals to Participate in Tuition 
Assistance Program.--
            (1) Individuals graduating from secondary school prior to 
        1998.--Section 3(c)(2)(B) of the District of Columbia College 
        Access Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-98; 113 Stat. 1325) is 
        amended by striking ``on or after January 1, 1998''.
            (2) Individuals enrolling more than 3 years after 
        graduating from secondary school.--Section 3(c)(2) of such Act 
        (Public Law 106-98; 113 Stat. 1325) is amended by striking 
        subparagraph (C).
    (b) Prohibiting Participation of Foreign Nationals.--Section 
3(c)(2) of such Act (Public Law 106-98; 113 Stat. 1325), as amended by 
subsection (a)(2), is amended by inserting after subparagraph (B) the 
following:
                    ``(C) meets the citizenship and immigration status 
                requirements described in section 484(a)(5) of the 
                Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091(a)(5));''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      202,115
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          25,047
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        27,519
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 254,681
<COMMON>                                         1,244
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       37,619
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             53,103
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  91,966
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,200
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            90,729
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               3,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    3,015
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  62,771
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  254,681
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      160,079
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             7,052
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     134,069
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     141,121
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         18,958
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 694
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  19,652
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         5,497
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,155
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        278
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   13,877
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         3,581
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        5,027
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          24,046
<EPS-BASIC>                                      11.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    11.16


</TABLE>
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1527

To provide funding flexibility to States and local educational agencies with

respect to programs to provide special education and related services

to children with disabilities.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. TIAHRT (for himself, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. WICKER, Mr. PAUL, Mr. JONES

of North Carolina, and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the

Workforce

A BILL

To provide funding flexibility to States and local educational

agencies with respect to programs to provide special education and related services to children with disabilities.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Flexibility to Increase

5 IDEA Funding Act’’.
2

•HR 1527 IH

1 SEC. 2. SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING FLEXIBILITY FOR

2 STATES AND LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGEN3 CIES.

4 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other

6 provision of law, a State or local educational agency

7 that receives amounts under any of the provisions of

8 law described in paragraph (2) may transfer, in

9 whole or in part, such amounts to programs to pro10 vide special education and related services to chil11 dren with disabilities in accordance with part B of

12 the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20

13 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.).

14 (2) PROVISIONS OF LAW.—The provisions of

15 law described in this paragraph are the following:

16 (A) Title I of the Elementary and Sec17 ondary Education Act of 1965 (other than sub18 sections (a) and (c) of section 1116 of such

19 Act).

20 (B) Part B of title II of such Act.

21 (C) Subpart 2 of part A of title III of such

22 Act (other than section 3136 of such Act).

23 (D) Title IV of such Act.

24 (E) Title VI of such Act.

25 (F) Part C of title VII of such Act.
3

•HR 1527 IH

1 (G) The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and

2 Technical Education Act of 1998.

3 (b) PROHIBITION ON REDUCTION OF GRANT

4 AMOUNT UNDER IDEA.—The Secretary of Education

5 may not reduce the amount of a grant to a State under

6 part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

7 (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) by reason of the authority of

8 a State or local educational agency to transfer funds pur9 suant to subsection (a)(1).

10 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

11 (1) LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY.—The term

12 ‘‘local educational agency’’ has the meaning given

13 that term in section 14101 of the Elementary and

14 Secondary Education Act of 1965.

15 (2) OUTLYING AREA.—The term ‘‘outlying

16 area’’ has the meaning given that term in section

17 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education

18 Act of 1965.

19 (3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means each of

20 the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Com21 monwealth of Puerto Rico, and each outlying area.

Æ
1 The HONORABLE ARTHUR B. FEDERMAN, Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri. 2 The HONORABLE SCOTT O. WRIGHT, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-2514

___________ All Denominational New Church, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Missouri. * Jackson County, Missouri, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 6, 2001 Filed: December 11, 2001

___________ Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. After the All Denominational New Church (the Church) filed a petition for bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court 1 granted creditor Jackson County’s motion for relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). Upon appeal, the district court 2affirmed and denied the Church’s motion for reconsideration. We-2- dismiss the Church’s appeal to this court as moot because the property the Church seeks to protect has been sold to third parties, and there is therefore no effective relief we could grant. See Van Iperen v. Prod. Credit Ass’n , 819 F.2d 189, 191 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 31.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Certifications

I, David Weisman, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Eagle Broadband, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
     disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being
     prepared;

     b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures and presented in this report our conclusions abut the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
     the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
     over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's recent
     fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
     materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
     reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);

     a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
     operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
     likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
     summarize, and report financial information; and

     b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
     over financial reporting.

Date April 11, 2005


/s/ David A. Weisman
David A. Weisman
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer