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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

WENDY MARIE PIERSON,

Petitioner, 

vs. 

STATE COURT,

Respondent.

8:23CV186

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Filing No. 6, and 

a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Filing No. 7. Habeas corpus cases 

attacking the legality of a person’s confinement require the payment of a $5.00 filing fee. 

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, after considering Petitioner’s financial status as shown in 

the records of this Court (see inmate trust account statement at Filing No. 8), leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis will be granted and Petitioner is relieved from paying the filing 

fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in 

Forma Pauperis, Filing No. 7, is granted. Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in 

Forma Pauperis, Filing No. 4, is denied as moot. The next step in this case is for the 

Court to conduct a preliminary review of the habeas corpus petition in accordance with 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases. The Court will conduct this review in 

its normal course of business.

Dated this 12th day of June, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00186-JFB-PRSE Doc # 9 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 49
The State of TexasAppellee



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

May 19, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00069

- CR

Charles Arthur WARREN

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR9856B

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant ’ s second motion for extension of time is GRANTED. Appellant ’ s brief is due

on June 19, 2014 . No further extensions will be granted.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 19th day of May, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keit h E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




March 2005


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: June 30, 2008
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lancelot Verwayne, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cohen, J.), rendered September 2, 1987, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.
182 La. 1054

#### OFFICER et al. v. AMERICAN INS. CO.

No. 33464.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 1, 1935.

See, also, Officer v. American Eagle Fire Ins. Co., 139 So. 719.

Frank E. Powell and Elmer L. Stewart, both of DeRidder, for appellants.

St. Clair Adams & Son, of New Orleans, and Pujo, Bell & Hardin, of Lake Charles, for appellee.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

The defendant, appellee, has moved to dismiss this appeal because the appellee was not served with a citation to appear in the appellate court. The appeal was taken by motion in open court, but during a term subsequent to the term in which the judgment was rendered and signed. A citation to answer the appeal was not asked for by the appellant, or issued by the clerk of court.

 The only instance in which a citation is not essential to the validity of an appeal is when the appeal is taken- by motion in open court during the same term in which the judgment is rendered. Code of Practice, arts. 573, 574, 581-583. Under authority of section 1907 of the Revised Statutes, an appellate court will not dismiss an appeal for want of citation to answer the appeal, but will grant further time for service of a citation upon the appellee, if the failure to cite the appellee was due to negligence on the part of an officer of the court. Hiller v. Barrow, 144 La. 282, 80 So. 538; Taylor v. Allen, 151 La. 82, 91 So. 635; Toca v. Rojas, 152 La. 317, 93 So. 108. But the clerk of court is not obliged to issue a citation to the appellee when an appeal is taken by motion in open court, unless the appellant asks for service of citation upon the appellee. When an appeal has been taken by motion in open court, during a term subsequent to the term in which the judgment was rendered, and no citation to appear in the appellate court was asked for or issued, a motion to dismiss the appeal must prevail. De St. Romes v. Macarty, 21 La. Ann. 277; Wheeler & Pierson v. Peterkin, 38 La. Ann. 663; Smith v. O’Reilly Elevator Co., 134 La. 635, 64 So. 494; King v. First Methodist Church, 137 La. 879, 69 So. 593; State v. Salmen Brick & Lumber Co., 149 La. 968, 90 So. 273; Palmisano & Palmisano v. Bonner, 167 La. 1014, 120 So. 630; Bass *772v. Lane, 169 La. 681, 125 So. 853; Jacobsen v. McGarry, 178 La. 79, 150 So. 838.

Act No. 234 of 1932, providing against the dismissal of an appeal because of an informality or irregularity in bringing up the record, or for some technical error, does not save an appeal from dismissal for want of citation, if the appeal was taken by motion in open court during a term subsequent to the term in which the judgment was rendered and no citation was asked for or issued. Jacobsen v. McGarry, 178 La. 79, 150 So. 838.

The appeal is dismissed.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1782

To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to provide for the position of Assistant

United States Trade Representative for Small Business.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 9, 2001

Mr. MANZULLO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to provide for the position

of Assistant United States Trade Representative for

Small Business.

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 ‘‘Small Business Export

5 Enhancement Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. ASSISTANT USTR FOR SMALL BUSINESS.

7 (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF POSITION.—Section 141(c)

8 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171(c)) is amended

9 by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
2

•HR 1782

1 ‘‘(6)(A) There is established in the Office the position

2 of Assistant United States Trade Representative for Small

3 Business. The Assistant United States Trade Representa4 tive for Small Business shall be appointed by the United

5 States Trade Representative.

6 ‘‘(B) The primary function of the Assistant United

7 States Trade Representative for Small Business shall be

8 to promote the trade interests of small businesses, to re9 move foreign trade barriers that impede small business ex10 porters, and to enforce existing trade agreements bene11 ficial to small businesses. The Assistant United States

12 Trade Representative for Small Business shall be a vig13 orous advocate on behalf of small businesses. In carrying

14 out that advocacy function, the Assistant United States

15 Trade Representative for Small Business shall conduct

16 meetings throughout the United States on a regular basis

17 in order to solicit views and recommendations from small

18 business exporters in the formulation of trade policy. The

19 Assistant United States Trade Representative for Small

20 Business shall perform such other functions as the United

21 States Trade Representative may direct.

22 ‘‘(C) The Assistant United States Trade Representa23 tive for Small Business shall be paid at the level of a mem-
3

•HR 1782

1 ber of the Senior Executive Service with equivalent time

2 and service.’’.

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ROBERT VINCENT HARRIS,

Defendant.

4:23CR3057

ORDER

Defense counsel has moved to withdraw due to a conflict of interest. (Filing 

No. 17). Defendant is eligible for appointed counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice 

Act, 18 U.S.C. §3006A, and the Amended Criminal Justice Act Plan for the District of 

Nebraska.

IT IS ORDERED:

1) Defense counsel's motion to appoint new counsel, (Filing No. 17), is

granted. Jessica Milburn is hereby withdrawn as counsel, and she 

shall promptly notify Defendant of the entry of this order.

2) The clerk shall delete Jessica Milburn from any future ECF

notifications herein.

3) The clerk shall forward this memorandum and order to the Federal 

Public Defender.

4) The Federal Public Defender shall forthwith provide the court with a 

draft appointment order (CJA Form 20) bearing the name and other 

identifying information of the CJA Panel attorney identified in 

accordance with the Criminal Justice Act Plan for this district. .

5) The newly appointed counsel shall promptly file an entry of 

appearance on behalf of Defendant.

May 24, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cr-03057-JMG-CRZ Doc # 18 Filed: 05/24/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 30
Exhibit 10.5

    

     

    

     

    

    
      

      

      Field Point Capital Management Company

      One Landmark Square, Suite 1900

      Stamford, CT 06901

      

      

      

      

      September 11, 2019

      PASSUR Aerospace, Inc.

      One Landmark Square, Suite 1900

      Stamford, CT 06901

      

      

      As Chairman of the Board as well as the principal shareholder of PASSUR Aerospace, Inc. (“PASSUR Aerospace” or the
        “Company”), I make the following commitment to the Company with respect to the period from the date of this commitment through September 11, 2020.

      

      

      Liquidity

      

      

      I commit that if the Company at any time is unable to meet its obligations through September 11, 2020, that I will
        provide the necessary continuing financial support to the Company to ensure the Company’s ability to operate as a going concern through the period ending September 11, 2020. Such continuing support may take the form of additional loans or advances
        to PASSUR Aerospace in addition to the deferral of principal and/or interest payments due on outstanding loans to PASSUR Aerospace as referred to above.

      

      

      These commitments are not conditional and are irrevocable through the period ending September 11, 2020.

      

      

      I, G.S. Beckwith Gilbert, having the financial wherewithal to enter into this irrevocable commitment, make the above
        commitments to the Company and its shareholders.

      

      

      

      

       /s/ G.S. Beckwith Gilbert

      G.S. Beckwith Gilbert

      President
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




September 2019


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: February 6, 2020
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
      Post-Effective Amendment No. 60 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-35784) and Amendment No. 512 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-05721), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 13, 2019, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The
      Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account H for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

     

    

    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    September 6, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Resource Management Company

v.

Frank Gregory

Civil No. 06-cv-366-JD

O R D E R

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

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated December 5, 2006.

SO ORDERED.

January 5, 2007 /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: Benjamin C. Riggs, Jr., pro se

Michael Ramsdell, Esq.

Mark E. Howard, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00366-JD Document 22 Filed 01/05/07 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
        32.1
  Certification
        of Chief Executive Officer
 Pursuant
        to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  C.W.
          Gilluly, Chief
          Executive Officer of AMASYS Corporation (the “Company”) certifies in his
          capacity as an officer of the Company that he has reviewed the Report of
          the
          Company on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 and that
          to the
          best of his knowledge:
  1.        
          the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and 15(d)
          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.
  The
          purpose of this
          statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of
          the United States code, as amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
          of 2002.
  A
          signed original of this
          written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company
          and
          will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
          Commission or it staff upon request.


December
        18,
        2007                                                                                                                 
/s/
        C.W. Gilluly,
        Ed.D.
 C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D.
 Chief
        Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

________________________________________________ 

 : 

US Securities and Exchange Commission : 

 : 

 v. : 

 : 

Eric Jaeger and : Civil No.: 07-00039-SM 

Jerry A. Shanahan, : 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

________________________________________________: 

JOINT MOTION OF JERRY SHANAHAN AND THE SEC FOR 

AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FOR THE FILING OF SHANAHAN’S 

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND HIS RESPONSE TO 

THE SEC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND FOR THE SEC TO 

FILE ITS RESPONSE TO SHANAHAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 Defendant Jerry A. Shanahan and the SEC hereby move this Court to enlarge the time for 

filing of the following summary judgment submissions: 

 (a) An enlargement of time to and including December 12, 2011 for the filing of Mr. 

Shanahan’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and his Response to the SEC’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment [Dkt. #258-260] (filed by the SEC on November 16, 2011); and, 

 (b) An enlargement of time to and including January 12, 2012, for the SEC to file its 

Response to Mr. Shanahan’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. 

 The additional time is necessary for Mr. Shanahan to perform legal research and prepare 

his summary judgment papers and his response to the SEC’s summary judgment motion, and for 

the SEC to thereafter prepare and file its response to Mr. Shanahan’s summary judgment motion. 

 Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), undersigned counsel Andrew Good sought and received 

the assent of SEC Trial Counsel Nancy Gegenheimer who concurs with the relief sought by this 

joint motion and gives permission to sign her name to this document. 

1

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 261 Filed 11/17/11 Page 1 of 2
 Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a) (2) the requirement of a supporting legal memorandum is 

excused because the relief sought is within this Court’s discretion. 

 WHEREFORE, Jerry Shanahan and the SEC hereby respectfully request that this 

Honorable Court grant this Motion. 

DATED: November 17, 2011 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 Jerry A. Shanahan 

 By his attorneys, 

 /s/ Andrew Good

 Andrew Good 

 /s/ Philip G. Cormier

 Philip G. Cormier 

 Good & Cormier 

 83 Atlantic Avenue 

 Boston, MA 02110 

 (617) 523-5933 

 s/Nancy J. Gegenheimer

 Leslie J. Hughes (Colo. 15043) 

 Nancy Gegenheimer (Colo. 8981) 

 Securities and Exchange Commission 

 1801 California Street, Suite 1500 

 Denver, CO 90202 

 (303) 844-1000 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I, Andrew Good, hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be 

sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing 

(NEF) on this 17th day of November 2011. 

 /s/ Andrew Good

 Andrew Good 

G:\CLIENTS\Shanahan (Civil)\Pleadings\Joint Motion for Enlargement of Time for SJ.doc 

2

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 261 Filed 11/17/11 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Olga L. Bogdanov,

Chapter 7 Trustee

v. Civil No. 06-cv-384-JD

B&H Foto & Electronics Corp.

O R D E R

This case was filed at the same time and by the same

plaintiff as the following cases: Bogdanov v. Concentra

Integrated Services, Inc., 06-cv-382-JD; Bogdanov v. Nsight

Technologies, LLC, 06-cv-383-SM; Bogdanov v. Physicians Specialty

Hospital of ElPaso East, L.P., 06-cv-385-PB; and Bogdanov v.

Christus Health Corporation, 06-cv-386-SM. Motions to withdraw

the reference from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

District of New Hampshire, along with the bankruptcy court’s

report and recommendation on each motion, are pending in all five

cases. The motions to withdraw the reference raise the same

legal principles and share similar factual bases. 

As such, with respect to the motions to withdraw the

reference from the bankruptcy court, these may be related cases

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) and Local Rule 42.1. 

Unless the parties or counsel advise the court otherwise, these

cases will be consolidated solely for the purpose of addressing

Case 1:06-cv-00384-JD Document 3 Filed 10/24/2006 Page 1 of 2

Bogdanov v. B&H Foto & Electronics Corp. Doc. 3

Dockets.Justia.com
2

the motions to withdraw the reference. Any objection or other

response to the order of consolidation shall be filed on or

before November 6, 2006.

In addition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2) the parties

each shall file a notice as to whether each consents to referral

of the adversary proceedings to the bankruptcy court, if the

motions for withdrawal of the reference were denied, “to hear and

determine and to enter appropriate orders and judgments, subject

to review under section 158.” Consents or notice that a party

does not consent to referral under § 157(c)(2) shall be filed on

or before November 6, 2006.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

October 24, 2006

cc: Geraldine L. Karonis, Esquire

B&H Foto & Elecctronics Corp.

Olga L. Bogdanov, pro se

US Bankruptcy Court-NH, Clerk

Case 1:06-cv-00384-JD Document 3 Filed 10/24/2006 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-171-PB

Lucien Arsenault

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the January 9, 2007 

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

complete a drug treatment program in which he is currently

enrolled. 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 January 9, 2007 to April 3, 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-00171-PB Document 12 Filed 01/04/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The December 18, 2006 final pretrial conference is continued

to March 21, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

December 18, 2006

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Jennifer Cole-Davis, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00171-PB Document 12 Filed 01/04/07 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of New Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2018 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and among NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC and CNH Equipment Trust 2019-A, does hereby certify that:

 

1.                                      NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.                                      The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Indenture Trustee.

 

3.                                      This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.                                      A review of the Servicer’s activities during the period from the trust’s initial cut-off date, December 31, 2018, to and including December 31, 2019 and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.                                      To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the period from the trust’s initial cut-off date, December 31, 2018, to and including December 31, 2019.

 

6.                                      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 23rd day of March, 2020.

 

March 23, 2020

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Carlo Alberto Sisto |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Carlo Alberto Sisto     |
|   | Title: | President               |

 

----