alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001023458
<NAME> AEI INCOME & GROWTH FUND XXII LTD PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       8,536,433
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,481
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,580,914
<PP&E>                                       5,328,730
<DEPRECIATION>                                (31,195)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,878,449
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          325,188
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,553,261
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,878,449
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               194,872
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   66,620
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                128,252
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            128,252
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   128,252
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     7.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     7.50
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

National Pasteurized Eggs, LLC

v. Civil No. 07-cv-103-JL

L. John Davidson

CLERK'S AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIFICATE TO

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

I, Charli Pappas, Deputy Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of New 

Hampshire, do hereby certify that the following documents constitute the supplemental record on 

appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals:

DOCUMENTS NUMBERED: 157 – Judgment. 

 159 and 160 Motion for Reconsideration to Alter Judgment 

 and objection thereto

 161, Order Denying (159) Motion for Reconsideration

 162, Notice of Appeal 

 163, Appeal Coversheet

 164, Clerk Certificate (Original had a typo) 

 

Certificate with copy of all documents listed above re-mailed via UPS 5/1/12

The Clerk's Office hereby certifies that the record and docket sheet available through ECF 

to be the certified record and the certified copy of the docket entries, and that all 

non-electronic documents of record will be forwarded with a copy of this Certificate.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my 

hand and affix the seal of said Court, at Concord,

in said District, on this day, May 1, 2012

JAMES R. STARR, Clerk

By: ____________________________

Charli Pappas

Deputy Clerk

cc: Peter G. Callaghan, Esq. 

 Adam Taylor Rick, Esq. 

 Paul C. Bordeau, Esq, 

 David Bownes, Esq. 

 Federal Circuit Court of Appeals 

 717 Madison Place, NW, Room 401 

 Washington, DC 20439

Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 166 Filed 05/01/12 Page 1 of 1
#### THOMPSON v. WALKER.

No. 7076.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Nov. 24, 1948.

Sholars & Gunby and Kent Breard, all of Monroe, for appellant.

Hudson, Potts, Bernstein Davenport, of Monroe, and Herold, Cousin & Herold, of Shreveport, for appellee.

HARDY, Judge.

This is a suit for the liquidation and accounting of a partnership alleged to have existed between plaintiff and defendant. The judgment in the record decrees the liquidation of the partnership, orders an accounting by both parties, the taking of an inventory, and taxes costs incurred up to the date of signing of the judgment against the defendant. The case comes before us on an appeal perfected by the defendant in which his only complaint is with respect to that part of the judgment taxing costs. Plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that'the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $2,000.00, and, alternatively, he prays that the appeal be transferred to the Supreme Court.

In view of the fact that the appeal is directed solely and exclusively to that portion of the judgment taxing costs against the defendant, and in further consideration of the fact that we find nothing in the record which would establish the amount of the costs incurred to date of the judgment, we have no basis upon which to predicate a judgment of dismissal or transfer.

Plowever, there can be no question as to the fact that the judgment appealed from is interlocutory in character. It is well established that, with rare exceptions, interlocutory decrees are not appealable, and this case does not come within any such exceptions. The following quotation from the opinion of the Supreme Court in Cotton v. Wright, 214 La. 169, 36 So.2d 713, is determinative of the proper disposition of this appeal:

> *615“A judgment ordering an accounting is not a final or definitive judgment. It is an interlocutory order or judgment and such as would work no irreparable injury. Benham Ziegler & Co., Inc. v. Mouledoux, 175 La. 711, 144 So. 428.

> “A motion to dismiss an appeal founded on the want of a legal right to the appeal may be made at any time. Such appeal may be dismissed by the court ex proprio motui. Sample v. Wheless, 159 La. 844, 106 So. 325; Mercadel v. Mercadel, 179 La. 895, 155 So. 391.”

For the reasons assigned, and on the basis of the authorities cited, i-t is now ordered that this appeal be dismissed at appellant’s cost.
1 Deposits .............................. 215 61 136 318 81 82 155 81 162 84 

Held in custody 

2 U.S. Treasury securities2 ................. 594,094 592,630 678,106 743,308 754,469 772,222 788,734 810,572 845,080 869,829 898,244 

3 Earmarked gold3 ....................... 9,451 9,099 9,045 9,004 8,977 8,971 8,971 8,971 8,971 8,971 8,971 

Note. The data presented in this table are available in the monthly statistical release ‘‘U.S. 2. Marketable U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds and nonmarketable U.S. Treasury 

Reserve Assets; Foreign Official Assets Held at Federal Reserve Banks,’’ on the Board’s web securities, in each case measured at face (not market) value. 

site at: www. federalreserve.gov/releases. 3. Held in foreign and international accounts and valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce; not 

1. Excludes deposits and U.S. Treasury securities held for international and regional included in the gold stock of the United States. organizations. 

82
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

St. Paul’s School,

Plaintiff

v. Civil No. 06-cv-406-JD

The Travelers Indemnity Company,

Defendant

ORDER OF RECUSAL

Plaintiff’s counsel is on my recusal list, therefore, I am

recusing myself from presiding over this case.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

November 3, 2006

cc: Wilbur A. Glahn, III, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00406-MML Document 7 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 1 of 1

St. Paul's School v. The Travelers Indemnity Company Doc. 7

Dockets.Justia.com
# Constitution Day and Citizenship Day, Constitution Week, 2008

Americans are united by the ideals of equal justice, limited government, and the rule of law.  On Constitution Day and Citizenship Day and during Constitution Week, we remember the vision and determination of the Framers to build a free society, and we celebrate the historical document they created to achieve that goal.

More than two centuries ago, our Founding Fathers gathered in Philadelphia and produced a charter that would promote justice and preserve the liberty of all our citizens.  The Founders established three separate branches of Government with a system of checks and balances among them.  Ours is the oldest written constitution in the world, and the American experiment remains the world's best hope for freedom.

The Constitution forged the American creed of liberty and equality and has lifted the lives of countless individuals.  Whether they are citizens by birth or by oath, Americans share a great tradition of enjoying liberty protected by a constitutional government of their choosing.

On Constitution Day and Citizenship Day, and during Constitution Week, Americans come together and recognize the blessings bestowed upon our great Nation.  On this occasion we celebrate the courage of the Constitution's drafters and recommit ourselves to making the United States a more perfect union.

In recognition of the signing of the Constitution and of Americans who strive to fulfill the duties and responsibilities  of citizenship, the Congress, by joint resolution of February 29, 1952 (36 U.S.C. 106, as amended), designated September 17 as “Constitution Day and Citizenship Day,” and by joint resolution of August 2, 1956 (36 U.S.C. 108, as amended), requested that the President proclaim the week beginning September 17 and ending September 23 of each year as “Constitution Week.”

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim September 17, 2008, as Constitution Day and Citizenship Day, and September 17 through September 23, 2008, as Constitution Week.  I encourage Federal, State, and local officials, as well as leaders of civic, social, and educational organizations, to conduct ceremonies and programs that celebrate our Constitution and reaffirm our rights and responsibilities as citizens of this great Nation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

[FR Doc. E8-22116

Billing code 3195-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
 

United States of America 

v. Case No. 06-cr-80-02-SM 

Patrick D'Amboise 

o R D E R 

On July 11, 2008 the defendant appeared for a "probable 

cause" hearing under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 on alleged violations 

of conditions of supervision. On June 23, 2008 defendant used 

alcohol and was subsequently arrested and charged with simple 

assault-domestic violence. I therefore find probable cause to 

hold him for a revocation hearing. 

The government has supplied the court with substantial 

evidence of the defendant's guilt. The alleged assault was 

violent. The defendant has a prior conviction for driving while 

intoxicated, and it appears that the defendant was under the 

influence of alcohol when he committed the charged offense. 

Under these circumstances, the defendant poses a serious risk to 

the victim if he is allowed to remain free pending a hearing on 

the supervised release violation. No condition or combination of 

conditions will be sufficient to ensure that the defendant will 

Case 1:06-cr-00080-SM Document 33 Filed 07/14/08 Page 1 of 2
not pose a risk to the public if he is allowed to remain free. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained 

pending trial. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney 

General or his designated representative for confinement in a 

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from 

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody 

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable 

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On 

order of a court of the United States or on request of an 

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the 

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United 

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection 

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED. 

~adt=---:::::::==:::0~.. _----=zo;;;oo 

United States District Judge 

I~ July~, 2008 

cc:	 Jessica Brown, Esq. 

Donald Feith, AUSA 

United States Probation 

United States Marshal 

-2­

Case 1:06-cr-00080-SM Document 33 Filed 07/14/08 Page 2 of 2
#### HECHT et al. v. PARKINSON.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Feb. 19, 1954.

• Boyce" F.' Ezell, Jr., Miami,‘for-appellants. !

Dixon,- Dejarnette & Bradford, Miami, for appellee.

SEB'RING, Justice.

Charles William Hecht suffered an iri-jury by accident arising out.of .and intthe . course of his employment. Within one year after the occurrence of the accident he died as the result of the injury. Subsequent to the date of the accident, but prior to his death, section 440.16, Florida Statutes 1951, was amended so as to enlarge the benefits accruing to the widow in case of the death of an injured claimant, F.S.A. § 440.16.

The real question on-the appeal is whether the- rights of dependents to workmen’s compensation benefits are to be determined by the law,-in effect at the time of an employee’s injury or at the time of his death.

It is held in this jurisdiction that the acceptance of the application of workmen’s compensation statutes by the employer, employee and insurance carrier constitutes a contract ‘ between the parties embracing the provisions of the statutes as tthey exist at the. time of any injury com-pensable under the terms of the statutes. Fink v. Fink, Fla., 64 So.2d 770; Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Bedingfield, Fla., 60 So.2d 489; Chamberlain v. Florida Power Corporation, 144 Fla. 719, 198 So. 486; Hardware Mutual Casualty Company v. Carlton, 151 Fla. 238, 9 So.2d 359; Stansell v. Marlin, 153 Fla. 421, 14 So.2d 892; Florida Forest and Park Service v. Strickland, 154 Fla. 472, 18 So.2d 251; and Phillips v. City of West Palm Beach, Fla., 70 So.2d 345.

*506Inasmuch as the amendment to the statute involved in this controversy is one of substance rather than one of procedure, we have the view that the above principle is controlling, and that the widow’s claim, under section 440.16, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., is payable in accordance with the schedule effective at the time the employee sustained his injury, even though the amendment increasing such benefits became effective before the employee died.

Other questions raised by the appellants have been considered and are found to be without merit.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and MATHEWS, JJ-, concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gary C. RIDENOUR, M.D., Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-10229.

D.C. No. CR-93-00060-DWH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 18, 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). Accordingly, Ridenour's request for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM**

Gary C. Ridenour appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to expunge his criminal conviction pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a, and the equitable power of the court. We affirm.

Ridenour contends that his 1994 felony conviction for unlawful use of a communication facility, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) was unlawfully obtained, and moved the court to expunge the conviction pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a. The district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the contention because Ridenour failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and failed to bring a civil action against the appropriate governmental agency. *See*5 U.S.C. § 552a(d) *&*(g).

Ridenour also moved the district court to expunge the conviction by exercising its equitable powers. Because Ridenour failed to present any evidence to support the claim that his conviction was obtained unlawfully, and in the absence of any other basis for ancillary jurisdiction, the district court properly declined to expunge Ridenour’s record. *See United States v. Sumner,*226 F.3d 1005, 1014-15 (9th Cir.2000); *United States v. Smith,*940 F.2d 395, 396 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IIB

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1456

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 3, 2001

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

AN ACT

To expand the boundary of the Booker T. Washington

National Monument, and for other purposes.

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

HR 1456 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Booker T. Washington

3 National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2001’’.

4 SEC. 2. BOUNDARY OF BOOKER T. WASHINGTON NATIONAL

5 MONUMENT EXPANDED.

6 The Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the establish7 ment of the Booker T. Washington National Monument’’,

8 approved April 2, 1956 (16 U.S.C. 450ll et seq.), is

9 amended by adding at the end the following new section:

10 ‘‘SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL LANDS.

11 ‘‘(a) LANDS ADDED TO MONUMENT.—The boundary

12 of the Booker T. Washington National Monument is modi13 fied to include the approximately 15 acres, as generally

14 depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Boundary Map, Booker T.

15 Washington National Monument, Franklin County, Vir16 ginia’’, numbered BOWA 404/80,024, and dated February

17 2001. The map shall be on file and available for inspection

18 in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service,

19 Department of the Interior.

20 ‘‘(b) ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL LANDS.—The

21 Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire from

22 willing owners the land or interests in land described in

23 subsection (a) by donation, purchase with donated or ap24 propriated funds, or exchange.

25 ‘‘(c) ADMINISTRATION OF ADDITIONAL LANDS.—

26 Lands added to the Booker T. Washington National
3

HR 1456 RFS

1 Monument by subsection (a) shall be administered by the

2 Secretary of the Interior as part of the monument in ac3 cordance with applicable laws and regulations.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 2,

2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-01/02/03-SM

Tai Tuan Nguyen,

Nu T. Tran, and

Quoc My Tran

O R D E R

Defendant Nguyen’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 16). Trial has been rescheduled for the June 2007

trial period. Defendant Nguyen shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later

than March 2, 2007. On the filing of such waivers, this 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 s in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: May 24, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: June 5, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00011-SM Document 17 Filed 02/22/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

February 22, 2007 

cc: James D. Gleason, Esq.

Michael Iacopino, Esq.

Michael R. Smith, Esq.

Jennifer C. Davis, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00011-SM Document 17 Filed 02/22/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-107-01-SM

Travis Blodgett

O R D E R

Defendant Blodgett’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 12). Trial has been rescheduled for the January 2007

trial period. Defendant Blodgett shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than December 14, 2006. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance

shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: December 20, 2006 at 3:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: January 9, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

SO ORDERED.

Case 1:06-cr-00107-PB Document 13 Filed 12/07/06 Page 1 of 2
2

_____________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

December 7, 2006

cc: Richard Foley, Esq.

Don Feith, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00107-PB Document 13 Filed 12/07/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1243 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1243

To amend title 5, United States Code, to require executive agencies to 
 pay the premiums for health care coverage provided under the Federal 
 Employees Health Benefits program for reservists in the Armed Forces 
        called or ordered to active duty for more than 30 days.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2001

 Mr. Kleczka introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 5, United States Code, to require executive agencies to 
 pay the premiums for health care coverage provided under the Federal 
 Employees Health Benefits program for reservists in the Armed Forces 
        called or ordered to active duty for more than 30 days.

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

SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF FEHBP PREMIUMS FOR CERTAIN RESERVISTS CALLED OR 
              ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY.

    (a) In General.--(1) Chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 8905a the following new section:
``Sec. 8905b. Payment of premiums for certain reservists called or 
              ordered to active duty
    ``An employing agency shall be responsible for paying, for any 
employee who is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces who 
is called or ordered to active duty for a period of more than 30 days, 
the employee's share of the premium for health care coverage provided 
to such member under this chapter during such period.''.
    (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is 
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 8905a the 
following new item:

``8905b. Payment of premiums for certain reservists called or ordered 
                            to active duty.''.
    (b) Applicability.--Section 8905b of title 5, United States Code 
(as added by subsection (a)), shall apply with respect to health care 
coverage provided to a member of a reserve component of the Armed 
Forces--
            (1) on or after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
            (2) on or after the date that is 10 years before the date 
        of the enactment of this Act if the member was called or 
        ordered to active duty in support of military operations 
        related to conflicts in Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, or the 
        Persian Gulf region.
                                 <all>
```