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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-166-01-SM

Antron Hughes

O R D E R

Defendant Hughes’ motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 18). Trial has been rescheduled for the October

2007 trial period. Defendant Hughes shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

not later than August 6, 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 defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: September 21, 2007 at 10:30 a.m.

Jury Selection: October 10, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00166-SM Document 19 Filed 07/24/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

July 24, 2007

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Helen Fitzgibbon, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00166-SM Document 19 Filed 07/24/07 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1727 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1727

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and one

                                 An Act

 
   To amend the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 to provide for consistent 
treatment of survivor benefits for public safety officers killed in the 
                              line of duty.

    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 ``Fallen Hero Survivor Benefit 
Fairness Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. CONSISTENT TREATMENT OF SURVIVOR BENEFITS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY 
              OFFICERS KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY.

    Subsection (b) of section 1528 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 
(Public Law 105-34) is amended by striking the period and inserting ``, 
and to amounts received in taxable years beginning after December 31, 
2001, with respect to individuals dying on or before December 31, 
1996.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector Lizardi MEDRANO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-10180.

D.C. No. CR-01-00072-FCD-02.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 17, 2003.

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

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

MEMORANDUM**

Hector Lizardi Medrano appeals his conviction by guilty plea and the 135-month sentence imposed for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U. S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1).

As part of his written plea agreement, Medrano waived his right to appeal the judgment and sentence. Because he received a sentence consistent with the plea agreement, and there is no evidence that the waiver of the right to appeal was not knowing or was not voluntary, we enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. *United*
      *743
      *States v. Aguilar-Muniz,*156 F.3d 974, 976 (9th Cir.1998).

DISMISSED.

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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Stephen Miner

v. 05-cv-075-PB

Hillsborough County Department

of Corrections, Medical Department Staff

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff has again sued the

Hillsborough County Department of Corrections and the staff of

its Medical Department. Construed liberally, the complaint

alleges claims for denial of medical and dental care under the

Eighth Amendment, denial of access to the courts under the First

and/or Fourteenth Amendments, and due process violations under

the Fourteenth Amendment arising from his administrative

segregation. In addition, he alleges that he has been

discriminated against on the basis of disability in violation of

Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42

U.S.C. § 12132, et seq.

The claims are identical to those alleged in Miner v.

Hillsborough County Department of Corrections, et al., 05-cv-054-

JD. In that case I concluded that plaintiff stated the following

Case 1:05-cv-00075-PB Document 4 Filed 06/06/05 Page 1 of 3
2

cognizable claims against O’Mara, Superintendent of the HCDOC:

(1) denial of adequate medical care, including the denial of

prescribed medications with regard to plaintiff’s chronic pain

and seizure conditions, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (2)

denial of access to the courts in violation of the First and

Fourteenth Amendments; and denial of due process in violation of

the Fourteenth Amendment arising from plaintiff’s administrative

segregation. I further found that plaintiff alleged a

discrimination claim on the basis of disability in violation of

the ADA. My Report and Recommendation was approved on April 26,

2005 (attached). In a subsequent Report and Recommendation, I

recommended dismissal of plaintiff’s request for permanent

injunctive relief in which he raised Eighth Amendment claims

premised on the denial of dental care, prescription glasses and

prescription medications. My Report and Recommendation was

approved on June 3, 2005 (attached). 

For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s claims are barred

under the doctrine of res judicata. See Carcieri v. Norton, 398

F.3d 22, 38 (1st Cir. 2005)(holding that “the doctrine of res

judicata operates to bar the relitigation of issues that were or

could have been raised in an earlier action between the same

Case 1:05-cv-00075-PB Document 4 Filed 06/06/05 Page 2 of 3
3

parties prescinding from the same set of operative facts.”) 

Accordingly, I recommend that the claims be dismissed. 

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of

Law Committee v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992);

United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986). 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: June 6, 2005

cc: Stephen Miner, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00075-PB Document 4 Filed 06/06/05 Page 3 of 3
slgd-ex101_6.htm



 

Exhibit 10.1

 

CUSTOMER AGREEMENT – FOURTH AMENDMENT 

This FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE CUSTOMER AGREEMENT (“Fourth Amendment”) is dated August 1, 2019 by and between Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (“C&D”) and Neoteric Cosmetics, Inc. (“Customer”). Each a “Party”, together the “Parties”.

PREAMBLE

WHEREAS, C&D and Customer entered into a Customer Agreement, with an effective date July 15, 2014 as amended on July 1, 2016, July 17, 2017, and May 1, 2018 (collectively the “Agreement”); 

WHEREAS, Customer wishes to continue to distribute certain C&D products; and

WHEREAS, C&D and Customer hereby mutually desire to amend the Agreement as stated below.

The Parties hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows effective as at the Effective Date (as defined below):


	
 
	
1.
	
Section 2 – Term.




The Term of the Agreement is hereby renewed for a period of one (1) year from January 1, 2020 and shall expire on December 31, 2020.


	
 
	
2.
	
Authorized Specialty Retailers List.




As of January 1, 2020, the Authorized Specialty Retailer List is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the revised Authorized Specialty Retailer List to be delivered by C&D concurrently with the execution of this Fourth Amendment.


	
 
	
3.
	
Effect of the Fourth Amendment. 




In the event of any conflict between the terms set forth in this Fourth Amendment and the terms of the Agreement, the terms in this Fourth Amendment shall supersede and control as to the subject matter.  In all other respects, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.  Capitalized terms used in this Fourth Amendment shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Fourth Amendment is executed and effective as of August 1, 2019 (“Effective Date”) by the duly authorized representatives of the Parties. 

 


	
CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC.
	
 
	
NEOTERIC COSMETICS, INC.

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
By:
	
/s/ Gina Hall
	
 
	
By:
	
/s/ Mark Goldstein

	
Name:
	
Gina Hall
	
 
	
Name:
	
Mark Goldstein

	
Title:
	
VP Sales Non-Food
	
 
	
Title:
	
President / CEO

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Date:
	
August 12, 2019
	
 
	
Date:
	
August 7, 2019
#### Marion S. CORBIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Sept. 10, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

United States of America

V .

Timothy Demontier

Criminal No . 07-cr-238-01-JD

O R D E R

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

10) filed by defendant is granted .

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days . The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U .S .C . § 3161 (h) (8) (B) (iv) , for the

reasons set forth in the motion .

SO ORDERED .

/s/Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

United States District Judge

Date : January 18, 200 8

cc : Mark A . Irish, Esq .

Jessica C . Brown, Esq .

U .S . Marsha l

U .S . Probation

Case 1:07-cr-00238-JD Document 11 Filed 01/18/08 Page 1 of 1
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00435

- CV
Valley Forge Insurance Company v. Exiquio Salinas
On Appeal from the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. C

- 3306

- 18

- B

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having con sidered this cause on appeal, vacates the trial court ’ s j udgment and dismisse s the case

. The Court orders the judgment VACATED and the case is DISMISSED

. Each party shall bear their own costs relating to this appeal

. We further order this decision certifie d below for observance. May 11, 2023
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sharrod Bennett

v. Civil No. 07-cv-107-PB

William Wrenn, Commissioner,

New Hampshire Department of Corrections

O R D E R

Currently before me for preliminary review is Sharrod

Bennett’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254

Proceedings (“§ 2254 Rule”) (requiring initial review to

determine whether the petition is facially valid and may be

served); United States District Court for the District of New

Hampshire Local Rule 4.3(d)(2) (requiring the Magistrate Judge to

preliminarily review all cases filed by pro se prisoners). When

this matter initially came before me, I ordered Bennett to amend

his petition to demonstrate that the claims raised therein, as

identified in my Order, had been fully exhausted in the State

courts. In response to my Order, Bennett filed an addendum to

his petition entitled “Response to the Court’s Order Dated April

30, 2007” (document no. 4). I accept the addendum, aggregated

Case 1:07-cv-00107-JL Document 5 Filed 05/31/07 Page 1 of 3
2

with the original petition filed (document no. 1), as

constituting the petition in this matter for all purposes. 

Bennett’s recent filing satisfactorily demonstrates that

each of the claims raised in the petition, including the federal

nature of each of those claims, has been fully exhausted in the

State courts. I, therefore, order the petition to be served on

respondent William Wrenn, the Commissioner of the New Hampshire

Department of Corrections. See § 2254 Rule 4. Respondent shall

file an answer or other pleading in response to the allegations

made therein. See id. (requiring reviewing judge to order a

response to the petition). 

The Clerk’s office is directed to serve the New Hampshire

Office of the Attorney General as provided in the Agreement On

Acceptance Of Service, copies of this Order, my April 30, 2007

Order (document no. 3), and the habeas petition (document nos. 1

& 4). Respondent shall answer or otherwise plead within thirty

(30) days of the date of this Order. The answer shall comply

with the requirements of § 2254 Rule 5, which sets forth the

required contents of an answer. Upon receipt of the response,

the Court will determine whether a hearing is warranted. See § 

Case 1:07-cv-00107-JL Document 5 Filed 05/31/07 Page 2 of 3
3

2254 Rule 8 (providing circumstances under which a hearing is

appropriate). 

Petitioner is referred to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, which requires

that every pleading, written motion, notice, and similar paper,

after the petition, shall be served on all parties. Such service

is to be made by mailing the material to the parties’ attorneys. 

SO ORDERED. 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 31, 2007

cc: Sharrod Bennett, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00107-JL Document 5 Filed 05/31/07 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1750 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1750

 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize funding 
for the State water pollution control revolving fund program for fiscal 
                        years 2002 through 2006.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2001

  Mr. Dingell (for himself, Mr. Doyle, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. 
  Bonior, Mr. Frank, Mr. Coyne, Mr. Engel, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Boucher, 
Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Etheridge, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Ms. 
 DeLauro, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Clement, Mr. John, Ms. Rivers, Mr. 
Allen, Mr. Levin, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Acevedo-Vila, Mr. Lewis 
 of Georgia, Mr. Holden, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Jefferson, Ms. 
    Solis, and Mr. Kildee) introduced the following bill; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize funding 
for the State water pollution control revolving fund program for fiscal 
                        years 2002 through 2006.

    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 ``Clean Water State Revolving Fund 
Enhancement Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 607 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act (33 U.S.C. 1387) is amended by striking ``the following sums:''and 
all that follows through the period at the end of paragraph (5) and 
inserting ``$5,400,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 
2002 through 2006.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 602(b)(2)(6) of such Act (33 
U.S.C. 1382(b)(2)(6)) is amended by striking ``before fiscal year 
1995''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50336

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR MENDOZA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:10-CR-343-1

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Victor Mendoza challenges the 36-month sentence of imprisonment 

imposed following the revocation of his term of supervised release for his 2011

conviction for possessing with intent to distribute a mixture and substance 

containing heroin within 1,000 feet of a school. He contends that the district 

court failed to adequately explain its revocation sentence, which exceeded the 

range provided in the policy statements of the Sentencing Guidelines.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 17, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-50336 Document: 00515347210 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2020
No. 19-50336

2

Because this claim of procedural error was not raised in the district 

court, we review it only for plain error. See United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 

491, 497 (5th Cir. 2012). To establish plain error, Mendoza must show a 

forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. 

See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes this

showing, we have the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously 

affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.

Mendoza is unable to make such a showing. Specifically, he has not 

established that any deficiency in the district court’s explanation affected his 

substantial rights, as he has not shown that a more detailed explanation would 

have resulted in a different sentence. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 

256, 262-63 (5th Cir. 2009). Indeed, Mendoza requested that the district court 

impose the 36-month sentence. And the district court followed the Guidelines 

in ordering that the sentence run consecutively to any state sentence he was 

serving. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f). Thus, he has not demonstrated that the 

district court’s explanation for the sentence was so insufficient as to rise to the 

level of reversible plain error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-50336 Document: 00515347210 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-24-01-SM

Thomas Anderson

O R D E R

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

trial is granted (document 9). Trial has been rescheduled for the July 2007

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

later than May 1, 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 defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: June 25, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: July 10, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00024-SM Document 10 Filed 04/23/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

April 23, 2007

cc: Philip Utter, Esq.

Peter Papps, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00024-SM Document 10 Filed 04/23/07 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1772

To provide for an exchange of certain property between the United States

and Ephraim City, Utah.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 9, 2001

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

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To provide for an exchange of certain property between the

United States and Ephraim City, Utah.

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

3 SECTION 1. PROPERTY EXCHANGE.

4 (a) AUTHORITY.—If Ephraim City, Utah, conveys to

5 the United States all right, title, and interest in and to

6 the land described in section 2(a), the Secretary of Agri7 culture shall immediately convey to Ephraim City, Utah,

8 all right, title, and interest of the United States in and

9 to the land and the right-of-way described in section 2(b).
2

•HR 1772 IH

1 (b) EXCHANGE OF EQUAL VALUE.—The land author2 ized to be exchanged under subsection (a) shall be deemed

3 to be of equal value for the purposes of any Federal law

4 or regulation governing exchanges involving Federal land.

5 (c) NOT A MAJOR FEDERAL ACTION.—The exchange

6 authorized by subsection (a) shall not be considered a

7 major Federal action for the purposes of section

8 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of

9 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).

10 SEC. 2. PROPERTY DESCRIBED.

11 (a) EPHRAIM CITY LAND.—The land authorized to

12 be conveyed to the United States under section 1 is the

13 approximately 3.226 acres of land generally depicted on

14 the map entitled ‘‘Land Exchange Between the United

15 States of America and Ephraim City’’, dated February 1,

16 2001, and known as the Ephraim City Industrial Park

17 Property.

18 (b) UNITED STATES LAND AND RIGHT-OF-WAY.—

19 The land and right-of-way authorized to be conveyed to

20 Ephraim City, Utah, under section 1 are described as fol21 lows:

22 (1) LAND.—The approximately 0.700 acres of

23 land generally depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Land

24 Conveyance to Ephraim City from the United States

25 of America’’, dated February 1, 2001.
3

•HR 1772 IH

1 (2) RIGHT-OF-WAY.—The right-of-way begin2 ning 168.00 feet 4 inches South and 170.00 feet

3 East from the northwest corner of Block 16, Plat

4 ‘‘A’’, Ephraim City Survey, Sanpete County, State

5 of Utah: thence northwesterly to a point 1.30 chains

6 East from the northwest corner of Block 16; thence

7 West 18.00 feet; thence southeasterly to a point

8 18.00 feet West of the beginning point; thence East

9 18.00 feet to the point of beginning.

10 SEC. 3. JURISDICTION OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE UNITED

11 STATES.

12 Any land conveyed to the Unites States pursuant to

13 this Act shall be under the administrative jurisdiction of

14 the United States Forest Service.

Æ
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 340-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 340-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 340-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 340-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 340-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 5 of 5
Exhibit 32.1


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

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

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

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

Date:  July 29, 2004


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