alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United Stat es District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-3798

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Antonio R. Azpeitia, also known as * Markei Pena, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED] Antonio Ramirez, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 29, 2010 Filed: July 9, 2010

___________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Pursuant to a written plea agreement contai ning a waiver of his right to appeal, Antonio Azpeitia pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b)(1), and being a felon in po ssession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A) & 924(a)(2). The district court 1 sentenced Azpeitia to 140 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved-2- to withdraw and has filed a br ief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The government has moved to dismiss the appeal. We will enforce the appeal waiver in this case because Azpeitia’s appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the r ecord shows the requisite knowledge and voluntariness, and enforcing the appeal wa iver would not constitute a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, both plea agreement and waiver we re entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result; oneimportant way district court can ensure plea agreement and appeal waiver are know ing and voluntary is to question defendant properly about decision to enter agreement and to waive right to appeal); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena , 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issu es not covered by the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we grant the government’s motion to dismiss this appeal.

______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Benjamin C. Riggs, Jr. d/b/a

Resource Management Company

v. Civil No. 06-cv-366-JD

Janet Peschong, Personal Representative

of the Estate of Frank Gregory

O R D E R

Following the pretrial conference held on March 9, 2009,

Janet Peschong filed an amended final pretrial statement, which

included her affirmative defense of unconscionability. Riggs

moves for leave to file a motion in limine to bar the

unconsionability defense. Peschong objects to Riggs’s motion for

leave, contending the deadline for filing motions in limine has

passed and Riggs has not shown good cause for a late filing.

Although unconscionability was pled in the amended complaint

as an affirmative defense, that theory was not included in

Peschong’s original pretrial statement, filed on August 12, 2008,

or in the pretrial statement filed on February 17, 2009. 

Instead, the court allowed Peschong to amend her pretrial

statement to add the unconscionability defense. See Final

Pretrial Order at ¶ 8 (doc. no. 214). Therefore, good cause

exists to allow Riggs to file a motion in limine aimed at the

defense.

Case 1:06-cv-00366-JD Document 228 Filed 03/18/09 Page 1 of 2
2

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion for leave

to file a motion in limine (document no. 221) is granted. The

motion in limine is docketed as document no. 222. Peschong shall

file her response on or before noon on March 20, 2009.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

March 18, 2009

cc: Peter G. Callaghan, Esquire

Douglas N. Gould, Esquire

Resource Management Company

Case 1:06-cv-00366-JD Document 228 Filed 03/18/09 Page 2 of 2
183 La. 67

#### CRYER v. NATIONAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO., Inc.

No. 33168.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 1935.

On Rehearing July 1, 1935.

J. N. Brittingham, Jr., J. I. McCain, and Herman L. Midlo, all of New Orleans, for relators.

Porteous, Johnson & Humphrey, of New Orleans, for respondent.

ROGERS, Justice.

Plaintiff as the beneficiary named in two industrial life insurance policies issued on the life of Reuben Cryer, sued the insurance company to recover $250, the amount called for by the policies. The suit was based on Act No. 193 of 1906, plaintiff claiming that under the statute she was entitled to have the accumulated reserves applied to the extended value of the policies, since the insured on their lapse for nonpayment of the premiums had not exercised his privilege of applying the reserves to other values.

The insurance company set up by way of defense that Act No. 193 of 1906 was unconstitutional; that the statute did not apply to the business of industrial life insurance; and that under the stipulations of the policies plaintiff was entitled to their paid-up value, which was $32.40, which amount was tendered to plaintiff.

The First city court for the city of New Orleans, where the suit was filed, gave plaintiff a judgment for the full amount of the policies. The Court of Apppeal for the parish of Orleans maintained the constitutionality of Act No. 193 of 1906, but amended the judgment by reducing the amount thereof to $32.40. The case is now before us on plaintiff’s application for a writ of review.

Since defendant did not apply for a writ of review nor join in plaintiff’s application for the writ, there is no occasion for us to consider defendant’s contention that Act No. 193 of 1906'ds unconstitutional. Ware v. Couvillion, 112 La. 43, 36 So. 220; Black v. Louisiana Cent. Lumber Co., 161 La. 889, 109 So. 538; Foley v. National Life & Accident Insurance Company, Inc. (La. Sup.) 162 So. 798, this day decided. On the merits, the legal principles involved are identical with those involved in the case of Succession of Frank Watson v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (La. Sup.) 162 So. 790, this day decided.

For the reasons assigned in the Watson Case, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is annulled, and the judgment of the First city court is reinstated and made the final *judgment*of this court; all costs of suit to be paid by the defendant insurance company.

HIGGINS, J., recused.

On Rehearing.

BRUNOT, Justice.

The status of the plaintiff in this case is the same, and the issues presented are identical with those presented in the case of Charlotte Foley v. National Life & Accident Insurance Company, Inc. ("La. Sup.) 162 So. 798, this day finally decided, and, for the reasons assigned in that case, the original opinion and decree herein are reinstated and made the final judgment of the court.

*805O’NIELL, Chief Justice,

dissents for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in Succession of Watson v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (La. Sup.) 162 So. 790.

FOURNET, J., concurs.

HIGGINS, J., recused.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 125

To amend title 10, United States Code, to temporarily expand the Department

of Defense program by which State and local law enforcement agencies

may procure certain law enforcement equipment through the Department.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. LUTHER (for himself and Mr. NORWOOD) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to temporarily expand the Department of Defense program by which State

and local law enforcement agencies may procure certain

law enforcement equipment through the Department.

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 ‘‘Help Equip Local Po5 lice Act’’.
2

•HR 125 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROCUREMENT BY STATE AND LOCAL LAW EN2 FORCEMENT AGENCIES OF LAW ENFORCE3 MENT EQUIPMENT THROUGH DEPARTMENT

4 OF DEFENSE.

5 Section 381 of title 10, United States Code, is

6 amended—

7 (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub8 section (e); and

9 (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol10 lowing new subsection:

11 ‘‘(d) TEMPORARY PROCUREMENT OF OTHER LAW

12 ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT.—(1) The Secretary of De13 fense shall expand the procedures established under sub14 section (a) for the purchase of law enforcement equipment

15 suitable for counter-drug activities to include law enforce16 ment equipment that is not suitable or intended for

17 counter-drug activities. The catalog maintained under sub18 section (c) shall be expanded to include law enforcement

19 equipment authorized for procurement under this sub20 section.

21 ‘‘(2) Law enforcement equipment authorized for pro22 curement under this subsection by State and local govern23 ments may not include any equipment that the Depart24 ment of Defense does not procure for its own purposes.

25 ‘‘(3) The expanded procurement authority provided

26 under this subsection shall expire at the end of the two-
3

•HR 125 IH

1 year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this

2 subsection, except that the Secretary may continue to

3 process after the expiration date any request received

4 under this subsection before that date.’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-144-01-SM

Jason White

O R D E R

On April 10, 2012, defendant appeared for a preliminary 

hearing under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(1), on two alleged 

violations of conditions of supervision, as charged in the 

government's petition dated April 6, 2012 (doc. no. 26). 

Defendant is on release from his conviction in 2007 for

possession with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base 

and possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 

21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(1).

Defendant stipulated to probable cause on the violations. 

I therefore find probable cause that defendant has violated the 

conditions as charged in the petition.

Defendant sought bail conditions under Rule 32.1(a)(6). The 

government sought detention. Under Rule 32.1(a)(6), defendant 

bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing 

evidence that he will not flee and that he poses no danger to 

any other person or to the community. At the hearing, the court 

Case 1:06-cr-00144-SM Document 32 Filed 04/12/12 Page 1 of 3
2

summarized its findings orally from the bench. Those oral 

findings are incorporated herein. Based on the evidence 

presented at the hearing, and for the reasons stated on the 

record, defendant failed to meet his burden of persuading the 

court that he poses no danger to any other person or to the 

community. 

In sum, the court finds that defendant did not meet his 

burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that his 

release, even on strict conditions, would pose no danger to any 

other person or the community. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that 

the defendant be detained pending a final revocation hearing. 

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 

Case 1:06-cr-00144-SM Document 32 Filed 04/12/12 Page 2 of 3
3

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection 

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

 

Landya B. McCafferty

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: April 12, 2012

 

cc: Jeffrey S. Levin, Esq.

Robert J. Veiga, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00144-SM Document 32 Filed 04/12/12 Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

ANTHONY W. BROLLINI, and TRUDY A. 

NOWAK, as Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee 

in the Matter of Anthony W. Brollini,

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.,

Defendant.

8:23CV200

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Stipulation for Dismissal 

(Filing No. 23). The Court, being advised in the premises, finds that such an Order is 

proper.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this action be 

dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice and without costs or disbursement to any of the 

parties.

Dated this 19th day of March, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00200-JFB-SMB Doc # 24 Filed: 03/19/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 103
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 on Form 10-Q of Linens 'n Things, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended July 5, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Norman
Axelrod, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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.



/s/ Norman Axlerod
------------------
Name:  Norman Axelrod
Title: Chairman and
       Chief Executive Officer
Date:  August 19, 2003










                                       24
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATE
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Avenue Entertainment Group, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), we, Michael D. Feldman,
      Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Jerome I. Feldman, Vice Chairman,
      Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




1.
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 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.




May
      14,
      2008




/s/
                Michael D. Feldman
              Michael
                D. Feldman
              Chairman,
                Chief Executive Officer/s/
                Jerome I. Feldman
              Jerome
                I. Feldman
              Vice
                Chairman, Chief Financial Officer,
                Treasurer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 06-cr-160-01-SM

Kyshawn Ross

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 19) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the October 2007 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver

of Speedy Trial Rights not later than September 5, 2007. 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 the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account the

Case 1:06-cr-00160-SM Document 20 Filed 08/27/07 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: September 28, 2007 at 3:30 PM 

Jury Selection: October 10, 2007 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

August 27, 2007 /s/ Steven J. McAuliffe 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Helen Fitzgibbon, Esq.

 Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00160-SM Document 20 Filed 08/27/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-201-PB

Ruben Ortiz-Perez

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

December 4, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to complete discovery and prepare a defense or

engage in 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 December 4, 2007 to February 5, 2008. 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-00201-PB Document 10 Filed 11/16/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The November 26, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued

to January 30, 2008 at 4:15 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

November 16, 2007

cc: Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Mark Zuckerman, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00201-PB Document 10 Filed 11/16/07 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 35.1

 

ANNUAL SERVICER’S COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

 

This Compliance Certificate is furnishedpursuant to Section 4.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of December 12, 2018, by andamong Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust 2018-B, Hyundai Capital America, as seller and servicer (the “Servicer”), HyundaiABS Funding, LLC, as depositor, and Citibank, N.A., as indenture trustee and Item 1123 of Regulation AB. The undersigned herebycertifies that:

 

1)          Iam a duly authorized officer of the Servicer.

 

2)          Areview of the activities of the Servicer from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 (the “Relevant Period”) andof the Servicer’s performance under the Agreement during the Relevant Period has been made under my supervision.

 

3)          Basedon such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge, fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all materialrespects throughout the Relevant Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have duly executed this Compliance Certificatethis 13th day of March, 2020.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William J . Carey

V .

Daniel St . Hilaire, et al .

Case No . 06-fp-30 3

O R D E R

Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,

but pursuant to 28 U .S .C . § 1915, as amended, the filing fee must

be paid as follows : the sum of $5 .33 is due no later than

September 23, 2006 . In addition, 20% of each preceding month's

income credited to plaintiff's account to be remitted by the

Hillsborough County House of Corrections when the amount in the

account exceeds $10 .00 until the sum of $350 .00 has been paid .

Failure to pay the fee as ordered will result in dismissal of the

action without prejudice . In all other respects plaintiff's

request for in forma pauperis has been granted .

This case has been assigned number 06-cv-303-SM .

SO ORDERED .

/S/ Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

United States District Judge

Date : August 22, 200 6

cc : William J . Carey, pro s e

Bonnie S . Reed, Financial Administrator

NH State Prison, Inmate Accounts

Case 1:06-cv-00303-SM Document 5-1 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. 

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

HemCon, Inc.

Procedural Order

Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. has filed a motion to

quash a trial subpoena that requires Dr. John N. Vournakis to

appear and testify at the trial in this case, which is scheduled

to begin the presentation of evidence on April 19, 2010. The

time has not yet expired for HemCon, Inc. to respond to the

motion. Given the short time before trial is scheduled to begin,

HemCon shall file its response to the motion to quash no later

than noon on Monday, April 5, 2010.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

April 1, 2010

cc: Julie M. Baher, Esquire

Garet K. Galster, Esquire

Daniel R. Johnson, Esquire

Heather E. Krans, Esquire

Joseph A. Kromholz, Esquire

Lynda Q. Nguyen, Esquire

Brian M. Poissant, Esquire

Daniel D. Ryan, Esquire

Ognian V. Shentov, Esquire

Jonathan M. Shirley, Esquire

Daniel E. Will, Esquire

Leigh S. Willey, Esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 260 Filed 04/01/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         6,793,198
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                     119,409
<MORTGAGE>                                     484,794
<REAL-ESTATE>                                    1,706
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               7,828,537
<CASH>                                          35,912
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               5,021
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         644,073
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,959,317
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              7,510,987
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                   7,099
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          289,995
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                209,861
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          214,791
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,003
<OTHER-SE>                                     725,347
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,959,317
<PREMIUMS>                                      86,398
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            281,876
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             (3,621)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  10,348
<BENEFITS>                                     217,786
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     38,860
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            57,162
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 54,864
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,611
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             36,323
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    36,323
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.21
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>