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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

) CASE NO: 8:00CR71

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Plaintiff, ) ORDER

) TO WITHDRAW EXHIBITS 

vs. ) OR TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

) EXHIBITS SHOULD NOT BE

) DESTROYED

MARCIA A. COLLINS, )

Defendant. )

Pursuant to NECivR 79.1(f) or NECrimR 55.1(g), counsel for defendant shall either

1) withdraw the following exhibits previously submitted in this matter within 15 calendar

days of the date of this order, or 2) show cause why the exhibits should not be destroyed:

Exhibit number(s): 1-3; 1-2

Hearing type(s): Revocation; Revocation 

Date of hearing(s): 4/28/05; 11/4/05

If counsel fails to withdraw these exhibits as directed or to show cause why the exhibits

should not be destroyed, the clerk’s office is directed to destroy the listed exhibits without

further notice to the parties or order from the court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 23, 2007.

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon 

United States District Judge

8:00-cr-00071-JFB Doc # 81 Filed: 05/23/07 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 50
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Thomas M. Olsen

v. Civil No. 06-cv-477-JD

Loudon, Town of

J U D G M E N T

In accordance with the Order approving the parties’ Motion for Approval of Settlement

by District Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. on September 19, 2007, judgment is hereby

entered.

By the Court,

/s/ Charli M. Pappas

Charli M. Pappas, Deputy Clerk

September 19, 2007

cc: Hugh T. Lee, Esq.

David P. Slawsky , Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00477-JD Document 29 Filed 09/19/07 Page 1 of 1
Filed 9/29/22 P. v. Gomez CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CIPRIANO GOMEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D079761

 (Super. Ct. No. JCF004169)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, 

Christopher J. Plourd, Judge. Affirmed. 

Alex Kreit, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Cipriano Gomez entered into a plea agreement, under which he pleaded 

no contest to receiving stolen property (Pen. Code,1 § 496, subd. (a)) with a 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

Harvey2 waiver. He was sentenced to a three-year term in county jail. The 

sentence was suspended, and Gomez was granted probation. The probation 

officer recommended that Gomez be ordered to pay restitution to the City of 

Brawley in the amount of $27,656.38. Gomez requested a restitution 

hearing. His request was granted. 

At the restitution hearing, the court considered the probation report, 

police reports, documents supplied by the parties, and heard testimony from 

witnesses. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered Gomez to pay 

restitution in the amount of $27,556.38. 

Gomez appealed, challenging only the restitution order. 

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any 

arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the 

record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Gomez the opportunity to 

file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

DISCUSSION3

As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks 

the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and 

in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel 

has identified the following possible issue that was considered in evaluating 

the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred in issuing 

the restitution order in this case.

2 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.

3 Given the limited scope of this appeal, we find it unnecessary to discuss 

the facts of the offenses in this case.
3

We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. 

We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. 

Competent counsel has represented Gomez on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

DO, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

In re

MARTHA AKERS,

Debtor.

MARTHA AKERS,

Appellant,

v.

JOHN P. FITZPATRICK, 

Appellee.

Civil Action No. 18-cv-1323 (DLF)

(Bankruptcy No. 17-10034)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On June 1, 2018, Martha Akers filed a notice of appeal from bankruptcy case No. 17-

10034. Dkt. 1.

On July 3, 2018, the Clerk of Court provided the parties with notice of transmission of 

the record on appeal. Dkt. 3. In that notice, the Clerk of Court notified appellant Martha Akers 

that Rule 8018(a) of the Bankruptcy Rules of Civil Procedure required her to serve and file any 

brief by August 2, 2018, and that failure to do so could result in dismissal on appellee’s motion 

or, after notice, on the Court’s own motion. Id.

On August 6, 2018, Akers still had not filed a brief, and the Court issued a minute order

explaining that Akers had missed her Rule 8018(a) deadline. The Court further explained that, 

under Rule 8018(a)(4), if an appellant fails to file a brief on time, the district court, “after notice, 

may dismiss the appeal on its own motion.” The Court notified Akers that if she wished to 
2

pursue her appeal, she was required to file a brief on or before August 17, 2018. And it gave 

notice that failure to do so could result in dismissal of Akers’s appeal.

As of September 10, 2018—over one month after the Rule 8018(a) deadline and over two 

weeks after the additional time provided by this Court—Akers still has not filed a brief. The 

Court will therefore dismiss her appeal. A separate order consistent with this decision 

accompanies this memorandum opinion.

________________________

DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH

United States District Judge

Date: September 10, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 05-cr-275-01-SM

Laurie Lugocki

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 12) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the September 2006 trial period. Defendant shall file a

Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than July 19, 2006. On the filing of such waiver, her

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 for effective preparation taking into account the

Case 1:05-cr-00275-SM Document 13 Filed 07/11/06 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: September 1, 2006 at 10:30 AM

Jury Selection: September 6, 2006 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

July 11, 2006 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Arnold Huftalen, Esq.

 Douglas Beaton, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00275-SM Document 13 Filed 07/11/06 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage                     *de novo*, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

                    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at                     *www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​*.                

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 9, 2008.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco**                     (Tracy Basinger, Director, Regional and Community Bank Group) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:                

*1. D.L. Evans Bancorp, Burley, Idaho;*                     to engage de novo in a joint venture with New Country Mortgage, LLC, Pocatello, Idaho, in mortgage loan origination, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 19, 2008.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E8-22393 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
#### Ethel SVEDELIUS and Lorentz Svedellus, her husband, Appellants, v. WINN & LOVETT GROCERY COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division B.

Aug. 31, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v.

Peter St. Croix

Criminal No. 06-cr-211-01-JD

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

11) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. 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. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: February 21, 2007

cc: Joseph Caulfield, Esq.

Karin Eckel, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00211-JD Document 12 Filed 02/21/07 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 184 (Monday, September 22, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21811]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Fiftieth Meeting, RTCA Special Committee 135: Environmental 
Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 135 meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 135: Environmental Conditions and 
Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment.

DATES: The meeting will be held October 22-23, 2008, starting at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 
805, RTCA Conference Rooms, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, 
NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax 
(202) 833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice 
is hereby given for a Special Committee 135 meeting. The agenda will 
include:

October 22-23

    <bullet> Opening Session (Welcome, Chairman's Opening Remarks, 
Introductions).
    <bullet> Approval of Summary from the Fifty-First Meeting. RTCA 
Paper No. 091 08/SC 135-668.
    <bullet> Status of Revision of AC.
    <bullet> Update from Section 16 & 21 Working Group Meetings.
    <bullet> Review Change Proposals for DO-160G/ED-14G.
    <bullet> Closing Plenary Session (New/Unfinished Business, Date and 
Place of Next Meeting).
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 10, 2008.
Ed Harris,
Acting RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. E8-21811 Filed 9-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-219-PB

Derrick Kerrins

S E A L E D

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the March 6, 2007 trial

in the above case, citing the need for additional time to

complete discovery and engage in further plea negotiations. 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 March 6, 2007 to May 1, 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-00219-PB Document 16 Filed 02/20/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The February 21, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued

to April 17, 2007 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

February 20, 2007

cc: Michael Iacopino, Esq.

Robert Veiga, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00219-PB Document 16 Filed 02/20/07 Page 2 of 2
## F IFTH 

## D ISTRIC T 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE O F 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 20 22-2813 LT Case No. 2021- CC -000620

_____________________________ M ORNIN GSTAR A SSISTED L IVING , LLC , Appellant,

v. S AFEPOINT I NSURANCE C OMPAN Y , Appellee.

_____________________________
On appeal from the C o unty Court for Marion County. Lori Cotton, Judge.
Brandon S. Ves ley, of The Fl orida Appe llate Firm, P.A. , St. Petersbu rg, for Appellant.
Patrick M. Chidnese, of B.C.S. Appellate Practic e, and Frieda C. Lindroth, of Bickford & Chid nese, LLP , Tampa, for Appellee. May 7, 2024

P ER C URIAM

. A FFIRMED

. J AY , K ILBANE , and P RATT , JJ., concur
.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331
.

_____________________________
#### SKELLY v. WILLIAMS et al.*

No. 14734.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 21, 1934.

J, A. Morales, of New Orleans, for appellants.

E. A.. Parsons and Warren Woodville, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

*

Rehearing denied June 11, 1934.

HIGGINS, Judge.

Plaintiff sued the defendants to recover the sum of $553.50, the balance alleged to be due on a promissory note executed by them on September 17, 1930. Defendants admit the execution of the note and that the amount claimed is due, but in reconvention allege that the plaintiff was indebted unto them in the sum of $1,200, $1,150 of which represented rent due for certain furniture leased by them to the plaintiff at a renta] of $25 a month, and $50, the- purchase price of a range stove.

On the trial of the case plaintiff offered in evidence the note and the record and rested. . Counsel for defendants then stated • “That is our case, if your honor pleases, reserving our rights.” The trial judge said: “There will be judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount as prayed for. The reeonventional demand will be dismissed as in case of non-suit, giving ■ you (defendants) full opportunity to bring it.” The judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff as prayed for and dismissing the recon-ventional demand as in case of nonsuit. The defendants appealed.

The defendants, having admitted the execution of the note and' that the balance claimed was due, established plaintiff’s suit without the necessity of further proof. Defendants, as plaintiffs in reconvention, having failed to offer any evidence in support of the reeonventional demand, the trial court had no other alternative except to dismiss it.

The judgment appealed from is eminently correct and is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 149 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 149

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for 
                premiums on private mortgage insurance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2001

 Mr. Pascrell 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 allow a deduction for 
                premiums on private mortgage insurance.

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

SECTION 1. PREMIUMS ON PRIVATE MORTGAGE INSURANCE.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 163(h) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified residence interest) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(E) Private mortgage insurance premiums treated 
                as interest.--Premiums paid or accrued for private 
                mortgage insurance (as defined by section 2 of the 
                Homeowners Protection Act of 1998 (12 U.S.C. 4901), as 
                in effect on the date of the enactment of this 
                subparagraph) by a taxpayer in connection with 
                indebtedness with respect to a qualified residence of 
                the taxpayer shall be treated for purposes of this 
                subsection as qualified residence interest.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to premiums paid after December 31, 2000.
                                 <all>
```
Alphabetical List of the United States’ Demonstrative Exhibits

(Cited as US Dem. Ex. __)

1. Chronology of the GE/Fletcher’s Relationship and the Fletcher’s Site (DEM0000013-15)

2. Destination of GE’s Scrap Pyranol (DEM000005-7)

3. Estimated Gallons of Scrap Pyranol Transferred by GE to Fletchers 1953-1967 

 (DEM000008-10)

4. Generation and Collection of Contaminants in Scrap Pyranol During GE’s Manufacturing 

 Process (DEM0000011-12)

5. Total Amount of Scrap Pyranol Added to Paint by Fletcher’s (DEM000001-2)

6. When Not Sent to Landfills or into the Hudson River, GE Employees’ Beliefs About 

 Other Destinations for Scrap Pyranol (DEM000003-4)

7. Witness Identification (DEM0000016-17)

Case 1:06-cv-00354-PB Document 69-1 Filed 10/03/08 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Eagle Broadband, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending May 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
Weisman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date:  July 15, 2004


/s/ David A. Weisman
--------------------
David A. Weisman,
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
EX-10.1





 Exhibit 10.1 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE 

This First Amendment to Promissory Note (the “Amendment”) is made effective as of the 20th day of August, 2019, by OAKTREE REAL ESTATE INCOME TRUST, INC., a Maryland corporation (the “Borrower”), and OAKTREE FUND GP I, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
(together with its successors and assigns, the “Lender”). All capitalized terms not defined in this Amendment will have the meanings given to them in the Note. 

WHEREAS, Borrower and Lender are parties to that certain Promissory Note dated as of April 11, 2019 (as amended, the
“Note”), providing for an unsecured, uncommitted line of credit in a maximum aggregate principal amount of $150 million; and 

WHEREAS, in light of current interest rates offered in the market, the parties desire to amend the Note to reduce the rate at which
borrowings under the Note bear interest from LIBOR plus 3.25% per annum to LIBOR plus 2.50% per annum. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the agreements set forth in this Amendment and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 

 

	 	1.	 The words “LIBOR plus 3.25%” in the second paragraph of the Note are hereby deleted and replaced with
“LIBOR plus 2.50%”. 


  

	 	2.	 Except as otherwise amended hereby, the Note shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.



  

	 	3.	 This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York.



 [Remainder of page intentionally left blank. Signature page follows.] 












 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be effective as of the
date first written above. 
  

					
	BORROWER:
	
	OAKTREE REAL ESTATE INCOME TRUST, INC.


 
					
			
	    
	 	 By:
	 	 /s/ Manish Desai

		 	 Name:
	 	 Manish Desai

		 	 Title:
	 	 President





					
			
	    
	 	 By:
	 	 /s/ Jordan Mikes

		 	 Name:
	 	 Jordan Mikes

		 	 Title:
	 	 Chief Securities Counsel and Secretary



  

					
	LENDER:
	
	OAKTREE FUND GP I, L.P.


 
					
			
	    
	 	 By:
	 	 /s/ Manish Desai

		 	 Name:
	 	 Manish Desai

		 	 Title:
	 	 Authorized Signatory





					
			
	    
	 	 By:
	 	 /s/ Jordan Mikes

		 	 Name:
	 	 Jordan Mikes

		 	 Title:
	 	 Authorized Signatory