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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

NICHOLAS HEITMAN, 

Defendant. 

4:23CR3058 

ORDER ON PETITION FOR ACTION 

ON CONDITIONS OF PRETRIAL 

RELEASE 

 

 The defendant appeared before the Court on August 9, 2024 regarding Petition for 

Action on Conditions of Pretrial Release [57]. Jonathan Braaten represented the 

defendant. Daniel Packard represented the government. The defendant was advised of 

the alleged violation(s) of pretrial release, the possible sanctions for violation of a release 

condition, and the right to a hearing in accordance with the Bail Reform Act. 18 U.S.C. § 

3148. 

The defendant denied violating release condition(s) [24]. The Court took judicial 

notice of the petition and violation report. Both parties were given an opportunity to 

present evidence and make argument. After consideration of the parties’ evidence and 

arguments, the Court finds there is probable cause that a crime was committed; and clear 

and convincing evidence that a condition was violated. Therefore, the Court finds the 

defendant violated the Order Setting Conditions of Release [24]. 

The government requested an order of revocation and detention. The defendant 

requested release on present or amended conditions. After consideration of the report of 

Pretrial Services and the arguments of the parties, and affording the defendant an 

opportunity for allocution, the Court finds there are conditions or combination of conditions 

that will reasonably assure the defendant will not flee or will not pose a danger to any 

other person or the community, and the defendant is likely to abide by conditions of 

release. The government’s request for revocation and detention is denied. The Order 

Setting Conditions of Release [24] shall not be revoked and the defendant shall be 

released on the current terms and conditions of supervision. 

 

4:23-cr-03058-SMB-JMD Doc # 75 Filed: 08/09/24 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 126
2 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated this 9th day of August, 2024. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Jacqueline M. DeLuca 

United States Magistrate Judge 

4:23-cr-03058-SMB-JMD Doc # 75 Filed: 08/09/24 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 127
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

James B . Currier

V .

Hillsborough County Department

of Corrections

No . 06-fp-32 8

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERI S

Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee .

This case has been assigned civil number 06-cv-328-PB .

SO ORDERED .

United States Magistrate Judg e

Date : September 6, 200 6

cc : James B . Currier, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00328-PB Document 5 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### Kim D. PORTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Douglas Alan DOUBET, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-6319.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 16, 2003.

Decided Aug. 8, 2003.

Kim D. Porter, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Foster Barr, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Kim D. Porter appeals the district court’s order entering judgment for Defendant following trial in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We have reviewed the record and conclude that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                            
                                Estimated volume                 Share of total non-real-estate farm loans
                              (millions of dollars)                              (percent)
                      _____________________________________     ____________________________________________

Year                  Total     Q1      Q2      Q3      Q4      Total      Q1        Q2        Q3       Q4
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                            
1991......    |         105      12      25      36      32      .319      .037      .078     .103      .091
1992......    |          82      14      20      29      18      .237      .039      .062     .083      .050
1993......    |          54       7      16       5      26      .155      .020      .049     .014      .069
1994......    |          69      10      11      15      33      .187      .026      .032     .037      .082
1995......    |          51      -2      14      13      25      .131     -.004      .039     .032      .061
1996......    |          95      16      27      24      30      .240      .039      .070     .058      .071
1997......    |          93       6      19      19      50      .230      .014      .049     .045      .112
1998......    |          87       4      15      24      45      .198      .008      .036     .051      .095
1999......    |         126      18      37      35      36      .280      .040      .086     .078      .080
2000......    |         108      11      17      34      45      .259      .027      .041     .075      .098
2001......    |         308      67      53     140      48      .656      .142      .118     .294      .101
2002......    |         221      40      50      58      73      .471      .085      .114     .124      .157
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude
foreign results for large banks that report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks
that are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal definition of agricultural loans.
Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.

23
#### DIAMOND T. MOTOR TRUCKS, Inc., v. BILICH.

No. 16376.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 4, 1936.

Gaspar R. Bossetta, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Guy J. D’Antonio, of New Orleans, for appellee.

McCALEB, Judge.

Plaintiff sued the defendant on a promissory note. The answer admits all of the allegations of the petition, but there is a reconventional demand filed for the sum of $205.60, in which it is claimed that the note held by the plaintiff was given in payment of the purchase price of a truck sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, and that the truck, at the time of the sale, was not in good running order, and that, as a result, defendant was subjected to the expense of certain repairs and otherwise damaged.

The trial court found for the plaintiff in the amount sued for and dismissed the re-conventional demand. The defendant has appealed from the judgment.

On the day of argument defendant and appellant filed a motion to dismiss his appeal, but counsel for plaintiff and appellee has not consented to its withdrawal.

We first consider the motion to dismiss the appeal. Under the provisions of article 901 of the Code of Practice the appellate eourt is without power to allow the appellant to withdraw his appeal, after the jurisdiction of the court has attached, unless the appellee consents thereto. Hennen et al. v. Hennen et al., 173 La. 404, 137 So. 195; Witbeck v. Witbeck, 174 La. 899, 141 So. 871; Noble v. Landry, 175 La. 367, 143 So. 329.

Examination of the cause upon its merits discloses that the defendant appellant has failed to prove his claim in reconvention. Purely a question of fact is involved, and we find no error in the holding of the trial judge.

For the reasons assigned, the motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Motion to dismiss denied.

Judgment affirmed.
Order entered December 13, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 01033 - CV HENRY SANCHEZ D/B/A H SANCHEZ CONSTRUCTI ON, Appellant V. ALBERRAMAN L. CASTIL LO, Appel lee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC - 15 - 03266 - B



### O RDER Before the Court is court reporter Robin N. Washington’s December 12, 2018 request for extension of time to file the record

. We GRANT the re quest and ORDER the reporter’s record be filed no later than December 27, 2018.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1997<F1>
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                     15,486,681 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                 484,476 
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0 
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           15,971,157       
<PP&E>                                    125,803,774      
<DEPRECIATION>                             10,209,009    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            150,318,133      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      10,632,347    
<BONDS>                                    65,000,000  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<COMMON>                                       71,750 
<OTHER-SE>                                 26,261,742       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              150,318,133         
<SALES>                                     6,540,366          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            6,571,942          
<CGS>                                       3,488,271          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               3,488,271          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            2,712,098       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            588,739       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (217,166)       
<INCOME-TAX>                                (135,447)      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (81,719)      
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                 (81,719) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.01) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.01) 
<FN>

<F1> Brookdale Living Communities, Inc. commenced operations on May 7, 1997. As 
     such, the actual period covered for the period January 1, 1997 through June
     30, 1997, is May 7, 1997 through June 30, 1997.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                          
                                Estimated volume               Share of outstanding real estate farm loans
                             (millions of dollars)                              (percent)
                      ____________________________________     ___________________________________________

Year                  Total     Q1      Q2     Q3      Q4      Total      Q1        Q2        Q3       Q4
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                          
1992......    |          44       7     11     16       10      .232      .038      .058     .079     .049
1993......    |          24       2      4      7       11      .121      .010      .018     .035     .054
1994......    |          10       1      1      3        6      .048      .003      .003     .013     .026
1995......    |          12       0      3      6        4      .055     -.001      .011     .027     .016
1996......    |           7       0      1      2        4      .031      .000      .003     .009     .017
1997......    |          16      -1      0      3       14      .064     -.003     -.001     .010     .054
1998......    |           6      -1      3      0        5      .022     -.004      .009     .000     .016
1999......    |          15       0      3      5        7      .051     -.001      .011     .015     .022
2000......    |          12     -12      3      8       14      .037     -.037      .009     .022     .040
2001......    |          42      10      9      5       17      .123      .030      .027     .014     .049
2002......    |          35       8      6      5       16      .097      .022      .017     .014     .041
2003......    |        n.a.       4      6      8     n.a.      n.a.      .010      .015     .021     n.a.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.

25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Thomas M. Olsen

v. Civil No. 06-cv-477-JD

Town of Loudon

O R D E R

The Town of Loudon moves for reconsideration of the

court's order denying its motion to dismiss that part of Thomas

M. Olsen's claim seeking compensation under 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and

207 for time he worked beyond forty hours each week while

attending the New Hampshire Police Standards and Training

Academy. Loudon moved to dismiss the claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R.

§ 553.226(b)(2), on the ground that it was not obligated to

compensate Olsen for training beyond regular working hours that

was required for his certification under state law. Olsen argued

that 29 C.F.R. § 553.226(c) governed the obligation to compensate

officers attending a training academy. 

The court denied Loudon's motion because it failed to

address § 553.226(c), which appeared to provide the governing

rule. Loudon attempts to remedy its earlier omission in its

motion for reconsideration. Loudon now argues that §

553.226(b)(c), which provides that police officers who are

attending a training academy are due compensation only for the

Case 1:06-cv-00477-JD Document 25 Filed 05/10/07 Page 1 of 3
2

time that they are in class or in a training session, "merely

provides clarification of what is considered 'regular working

hours' when police officers or firefighters attend training."

Loudon's motion improperly introduces a new theory that was

not raised in its motion to dismiss. See LR 7.2(e). In

addition, Loudon's new theory does not provide grounds to dismiss

Olsen's claim. 

Loudon now contends that § 553.226(b)(2) precludes

compensation for time spent training at a training academy that

is "outside of regular working hours" and that § 553.226(c)

clarifies that "regular working hours" at a training academy

include all time that an officer spends in class and in training

sessions. Therefore, based on Loudon's own interpretation of the

regulations, given the definition of "regular working hours"

provided by § 553.226(c), § 553.226(b)(2) does not exempt Loudon

from paying Olsen for all time that he spent training at the

Academy, including time spent in training beyond forty hours each

week. 

Case 1:06-cv-00477-JD Document 25 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 3
3

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion for

reconsideration (document no. 20) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

May 10, 2007

cc: Hugh T. Lee, Esquire

David P. Slawsky, Esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00477-JD Document 25 Filed 05/10/07 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

MARIE SMYERS, ) 

 )

 Plaintiff )

 )

 v. ) Civil Action No. 05-CV-123-JM 

 )

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE ) 

COMPANY OF AMERICA, ) 

 )

 Defendant ) 

Now come the Plaintiff, Marie Smyers, and the Defendant, UNUM Life Insurance 

Company of America, in the above-entitled matter and hereby stipulate and agree, 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, that the above-entitled action, including all counts of the 

Complaint, and all claims and counterclaims which actually were asserted or which could 

have been asserted, shall be dismissed with prejudice, without costs to any party, and 

waiving all rights of appeal. 

Respectfully submitted, 

MARIE SMYERS UNUM LIFE INSURANCE 

By Her Attorney, COMPANY OF AMERICA 

 By Its Attorney,

/s/ Vicki S. Roundy /s/ Byrne J. Decker

Vicki S. Roundy, Esquire Byrne J. Decker, Esquire 

Roundy Law Offices Pierce Atwood 

42 Littleworth Road One Monument Square 

Dover, NH 03820 Portland, ME 04101 

(603) 743-4800 (207) 791-1100 

DATED: September 12, 2005 

{W0390909.2}

Case 1:05-cv-00123-SM Document 11 Filed 09/12/05 Page 1 of 1
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1388

To authorize funding for the National 4–H Program Centennial Initiative.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

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

Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To authorize funding for the National 4–H Program

Centennial Initiative.

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

3 SECTION 1. NATIONAL 4–H PROGRAM CENTENNIAL INITIA4 TIVE.

5 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

6 (1) the 4–H Program is 1 of the largest youth

7 development organizations operating in each of the

8 50 States and over 3,000 counties;

9 (2) the 4–H Program is promoted by the Sec10 retary of Agriculture through the Cooperative State
2

•HR 1388 IH

1 Research, Education, and Extension Service and

2 land-grant colleges and universities;

3 (3) the 4–H Program is supported by public

4 and private resources, including the National 4–H

5 Council; and

6 (4) in celebration of the centennial of the 4–H

7 Program in 2002, the National 4–H Council has

8 proposed a public-private partnership to develop new

9 strategies for youth development for the next cen10 tury in light of an increasingly global and tech11 nology-oriented economy and ever-changing demands

12 and challenges facing youth in widely diverse com13 munities.

14 (b) GRANT.—

15 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the availability of

16 appropriations, the Secretary of Agriculture shall

17 make a grant to the National 4–H Council to be

18 used to pay the Federal share of the cost of—

19 (A) conducting a program of discussions

20 through meetings, seminars, and listening ses21 sions on the National, State, and local levels re22 garding strategies for youth development; and

23 (B) preparing a report that—

24 (i) summarizes and analyzes the dis25 cussions;
3

•HR 1388 IH

1 (ii) makes specific recommendations

2 of strategies for youth development; and

3 (iii) proposes a plan of action for car4 rying out those strategies.

5 (2) COST SHARING.—

6 (A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of

7 the cost of the program under paragraph (1)

8 shall be 50 percent.

9 (B) FORM OF NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The

10 non-Federal share of the cost of the program

11 under paragraph (1) may be paid in the form

12 of cash or the provision of services, material, or

13 other in-kind contributions.

14 (c) REPORT.—The National 4–H Council shall sub15 mit the report prepared under subsection (b) to the Presi16 dent, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Committee on Agri17 culture of the House of Representatives, and the Com18 mittee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Sen19 ate.

20 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is

21 authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section

22 $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY US OF JUNE 30, 1997
AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      23,626,055
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  123,519
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,976,787
<PP&E>                                         500,827
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,500,353
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        52,544
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,129,690
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,771,407
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,359,158
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,088
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                412,249
<INCOME-TAX>                                    41,233
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            412,249
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   371,016
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09


</TABLE>
II

Calendar No. 231

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1766

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 12, 2001

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

NOVEMBER 16, 2001

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 4270 John Marr Drive in Annandale, Virginia,

as the ‘‘Stan Parris Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo5 cated at 4270 John Marr Drive in Annandale, Virginia,

6 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Stan Parris Post

7 Office Building’’.
2

•HR 1766 RS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

4 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

5 to the ‘‘Stan Parris Post Office Building’’.

Calendar No. 231

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1766

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4270 John Marr Drive in

Annandale, Virginia, as the ‘‘Stan Parris PostOffice Building’’.

NOVEMBER 16, 2001

Reported without amendment