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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William R. Bourque

v. Civil No. 06-cv-090-JM

Town of Hampton, et al.

O R D E R

The trial in this matter is rescheduled to September 18,

2007, since plaintiff has filed an addendum to its summary

judgment objection, the defendants have until May 1, 2007 to file

their addendum and the court will be in trial from May 1, until

the May 15 trial date and thus has no time to decide the motion

before the scheduled trial.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ James R. Muirhead 

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

April 18, 2007

cc: Thomas J. Gleason, Esq.

Scott F. Gleason, Esq.

William G. Scott, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00090-JM Document 20 Filed 04/18/07 Page 1 of 1
1. Gold held ‘‘under earmark’’ at Federal Reserve Banks for foreign and international

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.

SDR holdings and reserve positions in the IMF also have been valued on this basis since July

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

Asset 1997 1998 1999

2000

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

1 Deposits .............................. 457 167 71 125 142 110 104 76 78 139 115

Held in custody

2 U.S. Treasury securities2 ................. 620,885 607,574 632,482 641,830 632,216 623,553 627,081 624,177 628,001 611,641 595,591

3 Earmarked gold3 ........................ 10,763 10,343 9,933 9,711 9,711 9,711 9,688 9,688 9,674 9,620 9,565

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.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1630 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1630

    To encourage the International Monetary Fund to fully implement 
                 transparency and efficiency policies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2001

 Mr. Saxton (for himself and Mr. Armey) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To encourage the International Monetary Fund to fully implement 
                 transparency and efficiency policies.

    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 ``IMF Transparency and Efficiency 
Enforcement Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY TO MAKE LOANS TO THE INTERNATIONAL 
              MONETARY FUND.

    Section 17(a) of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 U.S.C. 280e-
z(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``A loan under the 
authority granted in this subsection may be made only within 1 year 
after the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, after consultation with the 
Comptroller General of the United States, have jointly provided to the 
Committees on Appropriations, Foreign Relations, and Banking, Housing, 
and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committees on Appropriations 
and Banking and Financial Services of the House of Representatives a 
written certification that the Fund has implemented fully the policies 
described in section 601 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, 
and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section 
101(d) of Division A of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999), except that if, in each of the 
preceding 4 years, such a certification has been so provided, and a 
joint resolution approving the certification has not been enacted into 
law pursuant to this sentence at any time during such 4 preceding 
years, then such a loan may not be made within 1 year after the 
provision of the certification unless, during such year, a joint 
resolution approving the certification is enacted into law.''.
                                 <all>
```
ex423a20170117hghtllcdec






[1.2.1.1] [HGHT LLC-DE Certificate of Formation.pdf] [Page 2 of 3] 





 






[1.2.1.1] [HGHT LLC-DE Certificate of Formation.pdf] [Page 3 of 3]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Robert P. DesRoches

v. Civil No. 05-cv-88-PB

John E. Potter, Postmaster General,

United States Post Office

O R D E R

I have reviewed the motion to amend de novo and considered

the plaintiff’s reply memorandum. Therefore, the plaintiff’s

objection to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of the plaintiff’s

motion to file a reply memorandum (doc. no. 59) is overruled as

moot. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 17, 2008

cc: Leslie Johnson, Esq.

T. David Plourde, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00088-PB Document 61 Filed 09/17/08 Page 1 of 1
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: February 18, 2016 520697 

________________________________

In the Matter of WILLIAM G.,

Alleged to be a Juvenile

Delinquent.

JONATHAN WOOD, as Tompkins MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

County Attorney,

Respondent;

WILLIAM G.,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: January 5, 2016

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ.

__________

Pamela Bleiwas, Ithaca, for appellant.

Jonathan Wood, County Attorney, Ithaca (William J. Troy III

of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Lynch, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tompkins County

(Rowley, J.), entered August 19, 2014, which granted petitioner's

application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 3,

to adjudicate respondent a juvenile delinquent.

In February 2014, respondent appeared in Cortland County

Family Court (Ames, J.) and admitted committing an act which, if

committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal

sexual act in the first degree. Family Court issued an order

upon fact-finding adjudicating respondent to be a juvenile

delinquent and ordering a predispositional report. Family Court
-2- 520697 

thereafter transferred the matter to Tompkins County, where

respondent resided, for disposition. After a dispositional

hearing, Tompkins County Family Court (Rowley, J.) ordered

respondent to be placed with the Tompkins County Department of

Social Services for one year for "non-secure placement with the

William George Agency, specializing in sex offender treatment." 

Respondent appeals.

Respondent's core argument on this appeal is that Family

Court violated the terms of the plea agreement by placing him

outside his home. He further asserts that the evidence did not

warrant his placement in a residential treatment facility, as the

least restrictive available alternative. Inasmuch as the

dispositional order expired by its own terms in August 2015,

these claims are moot (see Matter of Clarence D., 88 AD3d 1074,

1075 [2011]; Matter of Clifton NN., 64 AD3d 903, 905 [2009];

Matter of Brett W., 62 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2009]). That said, the

record shows that the plea was accepted without any promises as

to what the actual disposition would be.

McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. 1 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 2, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 04-30504 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KREGLAN DEWAYNE GAINES, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

(3:03-CR-132-2-B) Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kreglan Dewayne Gaines pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute, and to possess with intent to distribute,
more than five kilograms of cocaine and one count of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments. He was sentenced, inter alia , to 420 months in prison. Gaines contends the district court erroneously based his sentence on facts neither admitted by him nor found by2

the jury. Our review is only for plain error because he failed to object on this basis in district court. To establish plain error, Gaines must show a “clear” or “obvious” error affected his substantial rights. E .g. , United States v. Castillo, 386 F.3d 632, 636 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1029 (2004). Even then, we retain discretion to correct plain error; we will generally do so only if the error “affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id. The district court committed a clear or obvious error by sentencing him pursuant to a mandatory application of the Sentencing Guidelines and basing his sentence upon facts neither admitted by him nor found by the jury. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). Nevertheless, Gaines does not show he likely would have received a more lenient sentence if the district court had acted under an advisory sentencing scheme. See id. at 521. Therefore, he has not shown the error affected his substantial rights. See id. AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1624 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1624

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage 
        under the Medicare Program of all oral anticancer drugs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2001

Ms. Pryce of Ohio (for herself, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Foley, Mrs. Capps, Mr. 
Blunt, Mr. Hall of Ohio, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Ehrlich, and Mr. 
   Bentsen) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Ways and Means, 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 amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage 
        under the Medicare Program of all oral anticancer drugs.

    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 ``Access to Cancer Therapies Act of 
2001''.

SEC. 2. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF ALL ANTICANCER ORAL DRUGS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1861(s)(2)(Q) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)(Q)) is amended by striking ``chemotherapeutic 
agent for a given indication,'' and all that follows and inserting 
``agent for a medically accepted indication (as defined in subsection 
(t)(2)(B));''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1834(j)(5)(F)(iv) of such Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1395m(j)(5)(F)(iv)) is amended by striking ``therapeutic''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to drugs furnished on or after the date that is 90 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Radames Echeverria BERMUDEZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gail LEWIS, Warden, et al., Respondents—Appellees.

No. 02-15897.

D.C. No. CV-00-05442-REC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 13, 2003.*

Decided Jan. 17, 2003.

*269Before BEEZER, KLEINFELD and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Radames Escheverria Bermudez, sentenced to 25-years to life in prison for first-degree burglary, appeals pro se the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, *Miles v. Prunty,*187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

Bermudez first contends his mental incompetence prevented him from filing a timely federal petition. Bermudez’s contention fails, because he was able to file petitions in state court during the years prior to his § 2254 petition, and because his evidence refers to mental health problems after he filed his § 2254 petition. *See id.*at 1107.

Bermudez next contends that he deserves equitable tolling because he is illiterate, indigent, ignorant of the law, and was not provided Spanish legal materials. Assuming these problems to be true, they would not constitute extraordinary factors preventing timely filing, especially in light of Bermudez’s ability to file petitions in state court. *See Hughes v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections,*800 F.2d 905, 909 (9th Cir.1986) (holding pre-AEDPA that illiteracy of pro se petitioner was not a sufficient objective, external factor amounting to “cause” for failure to present claim to state supreme court).

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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19
- 0607 IN THE MATTER OF B.A.F., AN ALLEGED MENTALLY ILL PERSON . **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 August 5 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 25 2020

06/25/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0607
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jyco Sealing Technologies, Inc.

v. Civil No. 05-cv-410-PB

Robert Dion, et al

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 41.1, as neither an agreement for

judgment nor a stipulation for dismissal has been filed, this case is herewith dismissed with 

prejudice.

SO ORDERED. 

April 12, 2006 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Mark J. Gardner, Esq.

Cameron G. Shilling, Esq.

Carey Jordan, Esq.

Christina Espinosa Rodriguez, Esq.

Corey Tumey, Esq.

Scott F. Partridge, Esq.

Steven E. Grill, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00410-PB Document 21 Filed 04/12/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Civil No. 07-cv-80

ExxonMobil Corporation, et al.

ORDER OF RECUSAL

By statute, a financial interest in a party, however slight

(i.e., even one share), results in disqualification. As I have a

financial interest in defendants ExxonMobil Corporation and

General Electric Company, Inc., recusal is mandatory. See,

28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4). 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

April 20, 2007

cc: Jennifer J. Patterson, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00080-WES Document 7 Filed 04/20/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-64-PB

Jason Thomas

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

July 10, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for 

additional time to negotiate a plea agreement or prepare for

trial. The government does not object to a continuance of the

trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from July 10, 2007 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 1:07-cr-00064-PB Document 24 Filed 06/29/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on October

2, 2007 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

June 29, 2007

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Peter Papps, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00064-PB Document 24 Filed 06/29/07 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1
Board of Trustees
Archstone Communities Trust

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Re: Registration Statements Nos. 333-43723, 333-44639, 333-51139, 333-60815,
333-60817, 333-60847 and 333-68591.

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated July 26, 2000 related to our
review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant, or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the
meaning of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

                                                          KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
August 11, 2000
#### James Franklin GIBSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Norman MINETA, Secretary, Department of Transportation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-16439.

D.C. No. CV-01-00382-HDM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 13, 2003.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

James Franklin Gibson appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in *355favor of the Secretary of Transportation in his action alleging employment discrimination and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the basis of res judicata, *Altano v. Norwest Fin. Hawaii, Inc.,*244 F.3d 1061,1063 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 1014, 122 S.Ct. 505, 151 L.Ed.2d 415 (2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for the defendant because Gibson has raised the same claims against the defendant in prior federal actions that reached final judgment on the merits. *See Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc.,*244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir.2001).

Gibson argues that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) improperly dismissed the complaint he filed in 1990. This argument lacks merit because, after Gibson filed his actions in district court, the EEOC was required to dismiss any complaints or appeals relating to those district court actions. *See*29 CFR § 1614.107(a)(3) (requiring dismissal of a complaint that is the basis of a pending district court action or was the basis of an action decided by a district court); 29 CFR § 1614.405 (requiring dismissal of appeals in accordance with 29 CFR § 1614.107).

Gibson’s motion to file a late reply brief is GRANTED. The Clerk shall file the reply brief received on October 21, 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1661 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1661

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 7, 2001

    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To extend indefinitely the authority of the States of Washington, 
  Oregon, and California to manage a Dungeness crab fishery until the 
 effective date of a fishery management plan for the fishery under the 
       Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF STATES OF WASHINGTON, OREGON, AND 
              CALIFORNIA TO MANAGE DUNGENESS CRAB FISHERY.

    Section 203 of the Act entitled ``An Act to approve a governing 
international fishery agreement between the United States and the 
Republic of Poland, and for other purposes'', approved November 13, 
1998 (Public Law 105-384; 16 U.S.C. 1856 note), is amended by striking 
subsection (i).

            Passed the House of Representatives June 6, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Gerard Boulanger

v. Civil No. 07-cv-308-JD

Warren Dowaliby, Superintendent,

Strafford County Department of Corrections, et al

O R D E R

The parties are hereby directed to submit to the court their own discovery plans by March 6,

2007. Following receipt of the discovery plans, the court shall issue a scheduling order.

SO ORDERED.

February 5, 2007 /s/James R. Muirhead 

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Gerard Boulanger, pro se

T. David Plourde, AUSA

Corey M. Belobrow, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00308-SM Document 28 Filed 02/05/07 Page 1 of 1